* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-atomic passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing passed.
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing-ruby
passed.
*
Hi Mitch,
In general, I like the idea of removing some of the pointless/awkward
templates we have in gem5. I would definitely support moving in this
direction. However, I really dislike the idea of reviewing a 32k line
patch. Reviewing such a patch would be a headache and I suspect RB would
Hi Mitch/gem5-ers,
I think I would support the untemplating movement as well, so you have my
approval there too :)
With regards to implementation, I agree that splitting up the patches
makes for a better review although it will take a small amount of work to
get a reasonable splitting
I don't think this is really something you can half do, or at least the
time to break it into multiple pieces and individually test each one far
exceeds any possible gain. While it might be somewhat more annoying to
thumb though 15 pages of diffs in one sitting vs 3 pages of diffs 5
times, I'd
I like the idea of this patch as well. In fact, the templating doesn't
really help with extending the CPU model in my experience.
As far as splitting it up into multiple smaller patches, I don't think that
is necessary or really a good idea unless the changes are truly
independent. Instead of
Fair points Ali and Tony.
I think at the end of the day a 35k line patch (if it is that) will be a
pain to review no matter how you slice/dice it although I'd still maintain
at least dicing it into pieces would allow the reviewers to handle it
better.
If people all agree that this is the way to
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2278/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2278/#review5103
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Ali Saidi
On May 15, 2014, 4:03 p.m., Anthony
*Would it be possible to split this change into a series of smaller
patches?*
Thinking about what could be easily split off.
1) The moving of cpu/base_dyn_inst_impl.hh into o3's DynInst
2) The changing of the checker templating
Both of those could go in before the full untemplating patch. But
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On May 14, 2014, 6:41 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
gem5 aborts due to segmentation fault with this patch applied.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
Sequencer::writeCallback (this=0x3c9d800, address=..., data=...,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2276/#review5104
---
src/mem/ruby/system/Sequencer.cc
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2277/#review5105
---
src/cpu/o3/lsq_unit_impl.hh
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2277/#comment4623
12 matches
Mail list logo
