Ah ok, I see the problem. I'm still not thrilled, but if it's needed I guess we'll just have to go ahead.
Do we need both the left and right shift? (and is there any chance a multiplication/division might do instead?) Andreas On 01/02/2013 17:23, "Nilay" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, February 1, 2013 8:18 am, Andreas Hansson wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb. 1, 2013, 2:20 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: >>> > src/base/types.hh, line 122 >>> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1669/diff/1/?file=33575#file33575line122> >>> > >>> > I don't really like the idea of the shift operators for a Cycle >>> count. It feels really unintuitive to me. >>> > >>> > Why are these needed? >>> >>> Nilay Vaish wrote: >>> Because ruby uses the << operator in one of its coherency protocol. >> >> If we really need to shift things, I would still prefer to do it by >>going >> to a uint, do the shift, and then back to Cycles(res). Sounds >>reasonable? >> > >Andreas, had a C++ code been using this operator, I would have taken your >suggestion straight away. But doing this type casting in SLICC, in my >opinion, is not that straight forward and would be more changes than >addition of this operator. > >-- >Nilay > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
