> On July 26, 2012, 8:08 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > src/base/types.hh, line 60 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/diff/2/?file=28276#file28276line60> > > > > This is the first time I have seen ULL being written in this fashion. I > > usually write the number followed by ULL. For example - 123ULL.
I was merely sticking with the format that was used before. I'm not against changing it if desired. - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#review3146 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 26, 2012, 6:51 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, 6:51 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9133:93d82aae1592 > --------------------------- > 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
