Which is why I have posted the patches on the solution that I tried to lay
down in that email.
--
Nilay
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Gabe Black wrote:
Yep, and that was appreciated. But that was also very high level, and we
need to drill down more into how it's actually going to work.
Gabe
On 04/21/12 21:22, Nilay Vaish wrote:
I did sent out an email about the approach a week back, that is last
Saturday.
--
Nilay
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Gabriel Michael Black wrote:
I'd like to make a meta-comment here. It's good to communicate what
you're doing so you don't get a long ways in and find out you went
the wrong way, but at the same time it's important to know that what
you've got is actually going to work before you go to get it checked
in. With what I'm expecting will be a significant change like this, I
think it's best to have some good discussion about how your design
will work, then to implement it and get it working, and then to get
it checked in in reviewable pieces. If you get all the way to
something that works, you'll be able to see what changes you made
that were ultimately unnecessary, what things you overlooked that
forced something to be done a different way, etc. What you've got
here I don't think will work and does things it doesn't need to do.
It's in roughly the right direction though, so if you took it the
rest of the way I think those problems would get fixed.
Gabe
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
