Hi Nate,

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:47:38 +0100, nathan binkert <[email protected]>  
wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> I've only skimmed this diff, but I have one comment and one question:
> 1) We don't want you doing a "using namespace std;" in a header file,
> but we're OK with it in a .cc file, so you can save yourself all of
> the std:: that you have.  I'm not saying that you need to fix that,
> but in the future, you can do that if you want.
>
No problem. I will alter that, since I've got a bunch of other minor  
changes to make that get this all working with O3CPU. What's the best  
thing for me to do - add everything into this patch and repost or create  
separate patches for the new stuff that can be applied after this one?

> 2) In a bunch of the generate disassembly stuff, you use both ccprintf
> and operator<< on a stringstream. Why did you use operator<<?  Did
> ccprintf not work?  I'm just curious.
>
Ah, right. The disassembly code is one area that could do with some  
improvement. To tell you the truth, I put this together in dribs and drabs  
so the choice of << or ccprintf was just whatever was quick to get it  
working, then I didn't fix it up properly. Again, I can fix this so it's  
consistent, but at the same time I'd like to also change the disassembly  
output so that it is fairly similar to what gdb or objdump prints out.  
This means fixing some of the mnemonics under certain constraints and is  
kinda off my critical path at the moment. But it would be useful to do.

Cheers
Tim

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev

Reply via email to