----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#review3144 -----------------------------------------------------------
This seems like a great idea. I'm a bit concerned that there is something still lurking. Are we sure we know what the issue used to be and that it'd no longer a problem? src/base/types.hh <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#comment3296> Are we sure that this is no longer the case? src/base/types.hh <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#comment3295> Is this the correct value of maxtick now? Shouldn't it be ULL instead of LL? src/sim/eventq.hh <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#comment3293> Seems like the comment no longer applies src/sim/eventq.hh <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#comment3294> This too - Nathan Binkert On July 26, 2012, 5 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 26, 2012, 5 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9133:da2fa2718585 > --------------------------- > Clock: Make Tick unsigned and remove UTick > > This patch makes the Tick unsigned and removes the UTick typedef. The > ticks should never be negative, and there was only one major issue > with removing it, caused by the o3 CPU using a -1 as an initial value. > > The patch has no impact on any regressions. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/base/types.hh b57966a6c512 > src/cpu/o3/cpu.cc b57966a6c512 > src/sim/eventq.hh b57966a6c512 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > util/regress all passing (disregarding t1000 and eio) > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
