Nilay, I agree with Anthony. Even though you mention O3 does not support this as of now, I think we should still have both opLat and issueLat.
On a different matter, since I am not a frequent contributor to gem5, I usually don't let myself make comments or review patches even though I go over most non-ruby patches to educate myself. The thing that made me speak up this time is that this patch was pushed without any "ship it" and it was on review board for only 9 days. This does not seem right to me. Thanks, Amin On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Gutierrez, Anthony wrote: > > Nilay, >> >> Sorry I didn't review this before it went out, but would you mind >> reverting this patch? I do believe that issueLat should remain Cycles be >> allowed to be set to any value. One can certainly imagine a FU where you >> have a latency of X, and yet a throughput of 1 op / Y cycles, where Y != X >> or 1. >> >> Perhaps a patch that instead adds a comment to explain the semantics of >> issueLat - as opposed to removing it - would suffice? >> >> > > As of now the out-of-order cpu does not support such FUs. So such a > setting is not of any use and only causes confusion. > > -- > Nilay > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
