> On Oct. 1, 2015, 10:11 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > Seems like a good idea, but I'm curious about the decision to use the extra > > defaulted parameter. From a usability issue, it might be better just to > > introduce a new schedRelBreak() function that just calls schedBreak(n + > > curTick()).
I don't disagree. The original patch was just that and internal commentary led to this version. They both have a little bit of unsavoryness, but I'm certainly okay prioritizing the usability aspect. - Curtis ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3142/#review7327 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 30, 2015, 9:42 p.m., Curtis Dunham wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3142/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 30, 2015, 9:42 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Allow schedBreak() to set a breakpoint by relative rather than absolute tick. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/sim/debug.hh 11da0268127783772981a52485b5b883b1607c8b > src/sim/debug.cc 11da0268127783772981a52485b5b883b1607c8b > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3142/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Curtis Dunham > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
