On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Andreas Hansson <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On Aug. 7, 2012, 11:57 a.m., Nathan Binkert wrote: > > > I'm honestly not a big fan of CycleCount. I'd much rather see Cycle. > Is there something already called Cycle that would clash? I know it's not > as descriptive, but it's used all over the place and shouldn't take long to > get used to. Tick isn't TickCount. > > > > Ali Saidi wrote: > > The reason Tick isn't TickCount is Tick is absolute, while > CycleCount is supposed to only be relative. > > > > > > Nathan Binkert wrote: > > How about "Cycles" then :) > > I'm all in favour of something shorter as well, but I do see the point of > making it more explicit that it is relative. > > That said, there are plenty places where the type Tick is used to denote a > relative value (the diff between curTick and some other absolute time for > example). > > I am happy with either really, and merely followed the conclusion from our > e-mail thread. What does the rest of you guys think? Stay with CycleCount > to make it explicit? > As the person who (IIRC) suggested CycleCount, I'm not overly stuck on it. As most of you know by now, I'm also a big fan of conciseness. My main idea was not so much to emphasize that it's a relative value as that it can't be an absolute value, if that makes sense. From that perspective, Cycles also seems fine to me. I think that reads well in the (numerous) situations where Andreas is now casting int values, e.g., tc->activate(Cycles(0)). If we decide that all this stronger typing is worthwhile, then perhaps in the future we can look at splitting Tick into two types, e.g., Ticks and AbsTick, but that might be overkil. Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
