> On Nov. 25, 2014, 1:42 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > src/mem/packet.hh, line 507 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2495/diff/1/?file=42562#file42562line507> > > > > I suggest we change the name of this and other such functions from > > assert* to set*. If someone were to tell me just the name of the function, > > I would assume the function tests the mem inhibit property for being true, > > like the C assert() function does. I am guessing the name has been taken > > from usage we come across in texts on digital logic design. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > I have no objection to either, but it is definitely not something for > this patch. > > I suggest to bring that discussion to the dev list. Set or Assert are > both fine with me.
Yes, it's definitely using the EE definition of "assert" rather than the CS definition of "assert". The ideal gem5 developer is fluent in both dialects :). I see your point, but I'm not convinced it's worth changing. - Steve ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2495/#review5537 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 16, 2014, 10:14 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2495/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 16, 2014, 10:14 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10545:cf2650519e34 > --------------------------- > mem: Add checks and explanation for assertMemInhibit usage > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 1a9e235cab09 > src/mem/packet.hh 1a9e235cab09 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2495/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
