> On July 26, 2012, 6:08 a.m., Nathan Binkert wrote:
> > src/base/types.hh, line 55
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/diff/1/?file=28245#file28245line55>
> >
> > Are we sure that this is no longer the case?
>
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
> All the regressions work :), if someone knows what the issue was I'd be
> keen to know more.
>
> Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> I don't know for sure, but it could be a matter of doing a subtraction
> and checking for a negative result... however this code here looks safe, so
> maybe that's been taken care of:
> http://repo.gem5.org/gem5/file/b57966a6c512/src/mem/cache/tags/lru.cc#l130
>
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
> If there is a specific test to run let me know. As mentioned, all
> regressions pass.
Sorry not to be clearer... my point was that I don't see any code that should
have a problem with unsigned ticks. My hypothesis is that at some point in the
past this code I'm pointing to:
if (blk->whenReady > curTick()
&& blk->whenReady - curTick() > hitLatency) {
lat = blk->whenReady - curTick();
}
may have been written something more like:
Tick delay = blk->whenReady - curTick();
lat = (delay < 0) ? 0 : delay;
which works fine as long as Tick is signed but breaks when it's unsigned. But
since I don't see any code like that right now, I'm cautiously optimistic that
this comment is obsolete.
- Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1320/#review3144
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
