Joel, The reserved1_func shouldn't be added back to the header file. The that id was reserved by me while I was working on the critical path analysis stuff and is now used by that. The comment needs a bit of work. I shouldn't have said, "reserved for user", but rather, "reserved by a specific user for future functionality, do not use!" The m5.c change is fine with me. I can think of reasons to statically compile the binary and reasons not to. Either way is fine with me unless someone is vehemently opposed.
Thanks, Ali On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Gabriel Michael Black wrote: > Actually I have a minor comment there too. You should really only need to > touch a byte on each page of the buffer, not all bytes like memset would. > This will make a read_file take longer than it absolutely needs to, although > it's likely negligable. Feel free to ignore this as you see fit, perhaps > after giving it a try to see if the difference is even perceivable. > > Gabe > > Quoting Joel Hestness <[email protected]>: > >> So, it appears that the only change that we agree on for now is the change >> to m5.c. Should I submit that change as its own patch and withdraw this >> one? >> Thanks, >> Joel >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Gabriel Michael Black < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Quoting Ali Saidi <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:59:08 -0400, Gabriel Michael Black >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hmm, maybe we should be building these regularly too... What do you >>>>> think, Ali? Would it be possible to return reserved1_func and use a >>>>> different code? >>>>> >>>> It was reserved for me while I was doing the bottleneck analysis work and >>>> didn't want anyone to grab that ID. Once I pushed all of the bottleneck >>>> analysis changes, I changed reserved into the actual cp_annotate >>>> operations. So, everything worked as intended. >>>> >>>> reserved1_func shouldn't be used anywhere and shouldn't be added back to >>>> the file. >>>> >>>> Ali >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> m5-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >>>> >>>> >>> I don't understand how that made it reserved. Wouldn't anyone else be able >>> to do the same thing you did but with some conflicting use? The comment next >>> to those says "Reserved for user", but it's not if it ends up being assigned >>> an official use. Why would we want to have reserved2_func but not >>> reserved1_func? >>> >>> Gabe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> m5-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joel Hestness >> PhD Student, Computer Architecture >> Dept. of Computer Science, University of Texas - Austin >> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~hestness >> > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
