> There seem to be a few issues with the comInstEventQueue. Although the queue > counts instructions, it is still subject to the assert(when >= curTick); > assertion. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any way to find out what > the current instruction is to make sure that the scheduling always happens in > the future. > > Nate, the only thing I can think to do is have a parameter for if the assert > should be checked (either a variable or a template parameter), thoughts? In general, this needs to get fixed anyway if we're going to have multiple event queues. Really, we should get rid of curTick and put it inside the event queue class itself. The problem is that there's a hell of a lot of things that use curTick. Perhaps we can have both for a while and phase out curTick. Initially, curTick could become an inline function in the EventManager class (a base class of SimObject) that gets the curTick of the event queue.
> Anyone mind if I get rid of the instCount() function/variable that was used > for legion validation and create a virtual function in BaseCpu that returns > numInst? No feelings one way or the other, but it seems reasonable. Does it get called frequently? Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
