The call sight isn't wildly different, except that setCCFlagsBits will
have fewer parameters and won't have to put some of them on the stack.
A lot of the complexity comes from breaking up setCCFlagsBits so that
you have lots of function signatures, curly brackets, return lines,
etc., and some functions which duplicate logic operating on the
emulation or non-emulation version of a flag.
Gabe
Quoting Nilay Vaish <[email protected]>:
What I proposed --
zaps = setZaps(zaps,ext);
ecf = setEcf(ecf,ext);
What I believe Gabe proposed --
temp = setCCFlagsBits(zaps|ecf,ext);
zaps = temp & zapsmask
ecf = temp & ecfmask;
As of now I don't seen any merit that the second approach has over
the first one. Gabe, would you explain why do you want to go with
the second one?
--
Nilay
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Gabe Black wrote:
We're debating how the code in the patch should be organized. My
position is still that the function which computes condition codes
should not be split up and doesn't actually need to change. It sounds
like Steve agrees.
Gabe
On 05/10/12 13:31, Beckmann, Brad wrote:
What is the status of this patch? Nilay, are you trying to
address Gabe's concerns or are you having a problem defining a
solution that meets both your and Gabe's requirements? I don't
understand the specifics of this patch, but I want to do whatever
possible to find a solution. This is a critical fix for the O3
x86 CPU model.
Thanks,
Brad
_______________________________________________
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
