> > > The first thing I would ask is there are a lot of places where there > > is a Counter value and a Stat value holding the same value. > > Apparently, you can't access the value of a stat so another variable > > needs to be kept for book-keeping. It would be really nice if the stat > > and counter could be merged. For instance, in simple cpu there is a > > "numInst" (Counter) and a "numInsts" stat that get updated at the same > > point. > > We don't do that because stats can be reset at any time, so you > shouldn't have code depend on the value of a stat counter. > Although seems redundant, Makes sense. If only that value could be a dual stats/counter value (overkill).
> In SimpleCPU, that function is just " return numInst - startNumInst;". > The startNumInst counter seems to be used to reset Stats, but its > usefulness got counted out by changeset 3125 (yr.2006) so I dont think > it's useful anymore. So I want to delete the use of startNumInst. > I'm not sure if that's the right solution. Is numInst a stat? If > not, then it won't get reset properly and startNumInst is probably > should be set to numInst when stats are reset. > numInst and startNumInst are counters, but for some reason this code is used whenever resetStats is called. It was commented out and has been for awhile so I assume it's just obsolete code. > > > Third, > > the naming scheme across CPU models for committed instructions should > > be consistent but first some ambiguity needs to be cleared up. > This should be "fixed" by putting some stats in BaseCPU. Any stat > that should be in every CPU model should really be in the base class. > I don't have a solution to the naming problem though. > The patch I have puts the numInsts in the Base. I came up with a default naming. scheme for now and I'll just send it out and see what people think. -- - Korey
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
