On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:09 PM, nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org> wrote: >> How different are ITBs and DTBs anyway? It seems like for a UTB you'd >> want a single object that handles both ifetch and data translations >> using a common translate() method, not something that inherits from >> two different classes. E.g., why not just derive it from TLB? > The two translation functions are different because every ISA does > some different things for instructions vs data. Think about something > like the executable bit.
Right, but you could have a flag that says "ifetch" (or an ifetch/read/write enum in place of the read/write flag we have now) to control that behavior. Then the current ITB would panic on a read or write request, and the DTB would panic on an ifetch, but a UTB could handle all of the above. Or more realistically we could just punt on having separate ITB and DTB classes. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
