On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:31:09 -0000, Steve Reinhardt <ste...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Looking at just the part I've left below, it looks like you're
> separating out the split vs non-split calls at the top, and then they
> combine back into common functions at the bottom... I think it would
> be cleaner if we got rid of the separate calls, and just used NULL
> values for the split packets all the way down the call stack as a
> signal that this isn't a split call. That is, get rid of all the
> if (!isSplit) { } else { }
> code since it all ends up at the same place anyway.
>
Ok. I can make those changes too.
> What would *really* be nice is if we could keep a common code path,
> but compile out all the split-access code for ISAs that don't need it
> (based on some const bool value in the TheISA namespace)... but that's
> definitely extra credit :-). I'm fine with just getting the current
> patches checked in and leaving that for the indefinite future. Just
> thought I'd mention it in case you had any ideas.
>
I can definitely have a go at implementing this too. It makes sense and I
think that if I leave it for the future then it will be a long time before
I get round to doing it, so I might as well do the job properly now!
Cheers
Tim
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
