----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1361/#review3278 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/sim/simulate.cc <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1361/#comment3380> Well spotted! How about making the check (MaxTick - curTick()) > num_cycles and thus not "rely" on the behaviour of the overflow? - Andreas Hansson On Aug. 21, 2012, 1:33 p.m., Anthony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1361/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 21, 2012, 1:33 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9163:dae39bb9f807 > --------------------------- > sim: fix overflow check in simulate because Tick is now unsigned > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/sim/simulate.cc 019047ead23b43b584d01d50750b0ac99923cc1c > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1361/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Anthony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
