On Mon, 18 May 2015, Brad Beckmann wrote:
On May 14, 2015, 2:43 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote:
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.
I don't think there is an easy way to avoid this unless one were to
re-implement PerfectCacheMemor and DirectoryMemory. That goes well
beyond this patch and has many implications. This patch has existed for
3+ years because there is no easy fix here. Woud you be ok if we
changed the name of the function from getPointer() to
convertDirEntryToCacheEntry()?
No.
Can you explain how DirectoryMemory and PerfectCacheMemory are different
from CacheMemory? To me the fact that the patch has existed for 3+ years
means that nobody tried to do things the way I feel they should be done.
Please maintain regularity across different structures. I do not want to
treat DirectoryMemory any different from CacheMemory.
--
Nilay
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
