----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/946/#review1847 -----------------------------------------------------------
So the initial idea of the DefaultPeerPort is that otherwise (if you just set the peer to NULL) then if someone tries to send to an unconnected port you get a segfault, which is not helpful. Seems like in that sense this is a step backwards. Do you have other plans to avoid segfaulting on unconnected ports, that don't involve checking for a null peer on every packet send? - Steve On 2011-12-19 05:57:15, Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/946/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-12-19 05:57:15) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > MEM: Remove the notion of the default port > > This patch removes the default port and instead relies on the peer > being set to NULL initially. The binding check (i.e. is a port > connected or not) will eventually be moved to the init function of the > modules. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/bridge.cc ca98021c3f96 > src/mem/port.hh ca98021c3f96 > src/mem/port.cc ca98021c3f96 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/946/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > util/regress all passing (disregarding t1000 and eio) > > > Thanks, > > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
