> SysModule sounds OK; I like SysObject too (more parallel with SimObject and > MemObject) though it is slightly more ambiguous than SysModule. I'd hold > off on finalizing a name until we get another opinion or two. I'm not sure that Module is less ambiguous than object. (Especially now that I write a lot of python code and a module refers to something else :)
> If we're going to keep the class, I'd prefer to keep the same name... one > of the main reasons I'd lean toward keeping the class is to minimize the > changes to the existing hierarchy, and changing the name loses that benefit. He who is the master of perl -pi -e 's/foo/bar/' ?! To me, the object with both port and system should be MemObject (which really minimizes the amount of code that has to change) and the thing in-between should be something like SimObjectWithPort or PortedObject or something like that. I do prefer that we not collapse this into SimObject though. I'd really like SimObject to be stuff that is for the simulator engine, not the simulator components. I know we're failing already with the switchOut and takeOverFrom stuff (and potentially the drain code depending on how you argue), but I'd rather not make it worse. Nate _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
