> On March 23, 2015, 11:13 a.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh, line 529 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2703/diff/1/?file=44266#file44266line529> > > > > how about just creating a block here (from before this decl to after > > the loop) to localize the scope of 'writebacks', so we don't have to bother > > with the assert at the bottom? > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > Could do if you think it makes things prettier. I think I'd rather create > a new variable with a different name if you think it is needed. > > Steve Reinhardt wrote: > I don't understand your response. 'writebacks' isn't used after the loop > (afaict), so closing the scope at that point would not just make it evident > that it's not used again, but enforce it at compile time. I'm not sure what > creating a new variable has to do with it, I assume because I'm just > misunderstanding you. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > I could also just drop the assert since it is not used after the while > loop doing the writebacks. The assert is merely ensuring no one is adding any > new items after that. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > Ah, now I understand what you are saying. Sure, I can add a "{" and "}" > around it. This would probably be the only place in the entire code base > where we use this trick though.
"Narrow your scope with this one weird trick!" I agree we don't use standalone blocks like this much, but I wouldn't consider it a trick :). I'm sure there are several places where we have standalone blocks within the cases of a switch, though you could argue that's just working around deficiencies in the scoping of switches. - Steve ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2703/#review5963 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 23, 2015, 11:54 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2703/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 23, 2015, 11:54 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10765:751a74a1ff5b > --------------------------- > mem: Allocate cache writebacks before new MSHRs > > This patch changes the order of writeback allocation such that any > writebacks resulting from a tag lookup (e.g. for an uncacheable > access), are added to the writebuffer before any new MSHR entries are > allocated. This ensures that the writebacks logically precedes the new > allocations. > > The patch also changes the uncacheable flush to use proper timed (or > atomic) writebacks, as opposed to functional writes. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache.hh 8a4040874157 > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 8a4040874157 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2703/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
