> On Sept. 13, 2012, 2:41 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Make it check if not 32 or 64? Would that be reasonable? If not I'm happy > > to discard the warning. > > Anthony Gutierrez wrote: > Is there anything fundamentally limiting the space of block sizes in > gem5? Otherwise, I don't see this error having a purpose.
Sorry, warning, not error. - Anthony ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1421/#review3471 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 13, 2012, 11:37 a.m., Anthony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1421/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 13, 2012, 11:37 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9224:a1a9c14e69b9 > --------------------------- > bus: removed outdated warn regarding 64 B block sizes > > this warn is outdated as 64 B blocks are very common, and even > the default size for some CPU types. E.g., arm_detailed. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/bus.cc be1c1059438bbf7d181dc95a61ec685c2a52c696 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1421/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Anthony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
