Hi Gabe, I haven't looked at all the code surrounding this in detail, but I think this is unnecessary... packets really are messages (though up to now they've all been coherence messages), and the idea behind Port objects is that in the common case a MemObject should have a dedicated Port subclass that maps virtual functions like recvAtomic() to non-virtual member functions of that MemObject so that there's only one virtual function call on the path between two objects.
I suggest having IntDev::IntPort derive directly from SimpleTimingPort, move MessagePort::recvAtomic() directly into IntDev::IntPort, and then get rid of the MessagePort class entirely. Also I think that IntReq and IntResp (as you have in the comments in packet.cc) are much more descriptive names than MessageReq and MessageResp. Steve On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Gabe Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > changeset d2782c951841 in /z/repo/m5 > details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=d2782c951841 > description: > Create a message port for sending messages as apposed to > reading/writing a memory range. > >
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
