----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/#review6884 -----------------------------------------------------------
One more small thing, but other than that it looks good to me. src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractCacheEntry.hh (line 60) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/#comment5952> One issue with moving the implementation to the AbstractEntry is we lose the DPRINTF which was in the CacheMemory implementation. Could you move that DPRINTF to here? - Jason Power On July 10, 2015, 4:27 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 10, 2015, 4:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10928:2ff7814c0484 > --------------------------- > ruby: handle llsc accesses through CacheEntry, not CacheMemory > > The sequencer takes care of llsc accesses by calling upon functions > from the CacheMemory. This is unnecessary once the required CacheEntry object > is available. Thus some of the calls to findTagInSet() are avoided. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractCacheEntry.hh 5c76426fd9ee > src/mem/ruby/system/Sequencer.cc 5c76426fd9ee > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
