nathan binkert wrote: >> Good point... if we wanted to be completely safe we'd either have to >> require a prototype to be in scope or forbid using instruction >> operands directly as function call operands altogether. >> > > I feel like I can probably help with some useful ideas, but I don't > have a good enough picture of what's going on. Anyone want to do a > 30-60 minute phone call to sort this out? If Gabe did a little bit of > prep so he could figure out some code to walk us through (and telling > us to do some prep like compiling the simulator is fine too), I think > we could hammer a few things out quickly. > > I'm not clear on exactly what's going on here, but it seems to me that > proxy classes could solve some of the type problems. For example, > with partial template specialization, you can basically put a simple > no-op wrapper around most types but flag any use of a non-const > reference as a compiler error. > > Nate > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >
I might not be able to do that for a while, but we could do that in a few weeks. What specifically would you want to see in the code I'd walk you through? I think Steve has at least a good an understanding of the issues involved as I do, so you guys could do a phone call without me too. Gabe _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
