> On June 5, 2013, 12:18 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > src/cpu/o3/fu_pool.cc, line 263 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1894/diff/2/?file=35749#file35749line263> > > > > Is the bitwise and intended? It shouldn't matter though.
Could re-write it as is_drained = is_drained && unitBusy[i], but as they are both bool it does not matter. Is there such a thing as &&= ? - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1894/#review4387 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 4, 2013, 10:46 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1894/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 4, 2013, 10:46 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9744:03ce870a5145 > --------------------------- > cpu: Consider instructions waiting for FU completion in draining > > This patch changes the IEW drain check to include the FU pool as there > can be instructions that are "stored" in FU completion events and thus > not covered by the existing checks. With this patch, we simply include > a check to see if all the FUs are considered non-busy in the next > tick. > > Without this patch, the pc-switcheroo-full regression fails after > minor changes to the cache timing (aligning to clock edge). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/o3/fu_pool.hh ea26ba576891 > src/cpu/o3/fu_pool.cc ea26ba576891 > src/cpu/o3/iew_impl.hh ea26ba576891 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1894/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > All regressions pass > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
