On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Beckmann, Brad wrote:
I know how to go about making it work.
Can you explain a little bit of what you have in mind? I suspect that
we can append many functions and class names with the protocol name to
disambiguate. However, dealing with multiple definitions of MachineType
and its associated helper functions will be nontrivial. I suppose we
could move all that functionality to an abstract class, but that may
have some unforeseen consequences...not impossible though.
So if we make such a change, would scons need to parse all the .sm files
at the beginning of compilation? Is there a way to avoid that?
I thought more about this discussion that we have been having over past
few days. I think I would like to see ruby getting built only if PROTOCOL
is specified and that it should be possible to specify multiple protocols,
just like we can specify more than one CPU model. I am thinking of each
protocol having its own namespace, but as Brad pointed out there are
certain functions and data type definitions that would need more careful
treatment.
--
Nilay
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
