On Aug. 19, 2014, 5:11 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
src/cpu/o3/inst_queue_impl.hh, line 1116
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2332/diff/1/?file=40491#file40491line1116
We should use nullptr now that we have gcc minimum dependency at 4.6.
Mitch Hayenga wrote:
Hmm, at one point in this
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2332/#review5272
---
I'll take Mitch and Stephen's word that we need this patch. I'll still
On Aug. 16, 2014, 4:01 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
Two points that I would like to make:
* The opening comment in the patch states that it is trying to do two
things. I would suggest that we split the patch.
* I think we should not drop the original behaviour. Firstly, it was not
On Aug. 19, 2014, 5:11 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
src/cpu/o3/inst_queue.hh, line 322
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2332/diff/1/?file=40490#file40490line322
I think we need better differentiation between this list and the one
declared after it.
On further reading, it seems
On Aug. 16, 2014, 4:01 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
Two points that I would like to make:
* The opening comment in the patch states that it is trying to do two
things. I would suggest that we split the patch.
* I think we should not drop the original behaviour. Firstly, it was not
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2332/#review5261
---
Two points that I would like to make:
* The opening comment in the patch
Hi,
I'm the one who wrote this patch.
** The opening comment in the patch states that it is trying to do
twothings. I would suggest that we split the patch.*
Related code was already being changed by this patch, and going out of the
way to handle blocked and deferred memory instructions
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2332/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
