----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2786/#review6255 -----------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Nilay on this one. If there is a reason to have a pointer, then the C++ code should export a pointer type. Brad, it seems you also agree. From your response on review 2790 ( http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2790/ ): >SLICC has been designed not to directly expose pointers to the programmer So, this patch breaks a solid programming abstraction that already exists in SLICC. Further, if this patch were introduced and people use getPointer, then reverting this change later will be painful. It would be best to fix things the right way here. - Joel Hestness On May 11, 2015, 10:19 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2786/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 11, 2015, 10:19 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10843:632faa18dad5 > --------------------------- > slicc: convert a variable to a pointer address > > Add the getPointer() SLICC function that simply adds an ampersand to the > variable so that it can be assigned to pointer. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/slicc/ast/GetPointerAST.py PRE-CREATION > src/mem/slicc/ast/__init__.py fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > src/mem/slicc/parser.py fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2786/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Tony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
