-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2789/#review6202
-----------------------------------------------------------
I need a clarification on the proposed syntax. Is one port being nested inside
the other? For example
in_port() {
in_port() {
}
}
Or the two in_ports have separate declarations (not nested), but they share the
same message buffer?
- Nilay Vaish
On May 11, 2015, 10:22 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2789/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated May 11, 2015, 10:22 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Default.
>
>
> Repository: gem5
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changeset 10846:0f9c2e771fd7
> ---------------------------
> slicc: support for multiple message types on the same buffer
>
> This patch allows SLICC protocols to use more than one message type with a
> message buffer. For example, you can declare two in ports as such:
>
> in_port(ResponseQueue_in, ResponseMsg, responseFromDir, rank=3) {
> in_port(tgtResponseQueue_in, TgtResponseMsg, responseFromDir, rank=2) {
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm
> fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
> src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractController.hh
> fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
> src/mem/slicc/ast/InPortDeclAST.py fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
> src/mem/slicc/ast/PeekStatementAST.py
> fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
> src/mem/slicc/symbols/StateMachine.py
> fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
> src/mem/slicc/symbols/Var.py fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec
>
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2789/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony Gutierrez
>
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
