On 06/22/11 11:41, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > Side question: why is the "to" line [email protected], but "reply-to" > is [email protected]? Gabe, are you sending to the former rather than > the latter? Gmail wants to reply to both when I reply...
Yeah, I may have done that out of habit. I'll try to be careful not to. > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Gabriel Michael Black > <[email protected]> wrote: >> These changes are to eliminate read and write entirely. Leaving them in one >> place or the other is not useful since they aren't used by anything and >> would at best be a useless inconsistency across different implementations of >> a common interface. > I'm not sure if this is in response to this proposal of mine that I > just sent a minute or two before your email: Nope. I'm going to tend to be high latency much of the time, so I may send responses a good while after the whatever I'm responding too. >> One intermediate option is to maintain the templates, but find a way to make >> them global (perhaps with per-ISA extensions?) rather than per CPU model. > ... but just to be clear, I'm saying let's keep readBytes/writeBytes > as the official ExecContext interface, but provide global templates > that map basic data types like uint64_t to those functions as a > convenience for when they can be used (but these templates can be > bypassed when appropriate). Then we can hide the byte swapping and > tracing goop inside those templates in the typical case. I was thinking something like that might work too. There are drawbacks though. And we could move the templates into a .hh that belongs to the CPUs and get a similar effect. I'll see if any later emails touch on this before I dive into it. > Steve > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
