So, who's doing this?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Steve Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the easiest short-term fix is just to revert that changeset... > the only thing it provides is better error messages, so there's no big > loss for that. We can resurrect it once we fix the memory leak. > > Steve > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM, nathan binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I thought about that and got rid of the ones in CopyString*(). >>> However, without passing the tc object and creating a new port the >>> getfile (m5 op that stucks in the config file) fails to work >>> correctly. There must be something more going on there, but I couldn't >>> figure out what was happening. >> >> I'm actually hacking on that code right now, so maybe I can figure >> things out. Is there any quick fix we can get into the tree? What if >> we reference count the default port objects (or all port objects)? >> Can that fix the problem? >> >> Nate >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> m5-dev@m5sim.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
