On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug. 24, 2012, 1:36 p.m., Anthony Gutierrez wrote:
> > > This code also helped me get past some assertion failures. I am not
> quite sure how the tmp block stuff works and with this patch it seems like
> we shouldn't really be calling i
> On Aug. 24, 2012, 1:36 p.m., Anthony Gutierrez wrote:
> > This code also helped me get past some assertion failures. I am not quite
> > sure how the tmp block stuff works and with this patch it seems like we
> > shouldn't really be calling invalidateBlk() on tmp blks at all. Is the
> > reaso
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1294/#review3312
---
This code also helped me get past some assertion failures. I am not quite
Hi Ali,
I have written it, but got distracted before testing it. Sorry! I'll
get that up on the patch board.
Lena
2012/8/13 Ali Saidi :
>
>
> Hi Lena,
>
> Have you had a chance to create a patch that does this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ali
>
> On 08.07.2012 13:49, Lena Olson wrote:
>
>> That seems
>
Hi Lena,
Have you had a chance to create a patch that does this?
Thanks,
Ali
On 08.07.2012 13:49, Lena Olson wrote:
> That seems
like a good plan to me -- the current way is non-intuitive
> and kind of
kludgy (which is my excuse for missing the case of the
> temporary block
in my initi
That seems like a good plan to me -- the current way is non-intuitive
and kind of kludgy (which is my excuse for missing the case of the
temporary block in my initial patch =) ), and separating out the the
management of the cache block from management of the cache tags makes
much more sense to me.
Sounds good to me…. Wanna split them up?
Ali
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> (I started to write this as a reviewboard comment, but it got kind of
> long...)
>
> I can see how this might work, but it seems a little obscure. In
> particular, it's not obvious that checking
(I started to write this as a reviewboard comment, but it got kind of
long...)
I can see how this might work, but it seems a little obscure. In
particular, it's not obvious that checking blk->isValid() is equivalent to
checking for the temp block. The fact that it works is due to a recent
hack t
> On July 6, 2012, 12:12 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > Any tests to confirm: 1) that it works :), 2) that it does what it is
> > intended to do?
At least it has corrected the problem I had with some of my simulations. So
from my point of view, the answer is yes to the two questions :)
- N
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1294/#review3056
---
Any tests to confirm: 1) that it works :), 2) that it does what it is int
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1294/
---
Review request for Default.
Description
---
Changeset 9072:f58254385d89
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
