Steve Reinhardt wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > >> changeset 67c670459d01 in /z/repo/m5 >> details: http://repo.m5sim.org/m5?cmd=changeset;node=67c670459d01 >> description: >> CPU: Add readBytes and writeBytes functions to the exec contexts. >> >> > > >> @@ -889,11 +894,6 @@ >> effAddrValid = true; >> fault = cpu->read(req, sreqLow, sreqHigh, data, lqIdx); >> } else { >> - >> - // Return a fixed value to keep simulation deterministic even >> - // along misspeculated paths. >> - data = (T)-1; >> - >> // Commit will have to clean up whatever happened. Set this >> // instruction as executed. >> this->setExecuted(); >> @@ -901,7 +901,6 @@ >> >> if (traceData) { >> traceData->setAddr(addr); >> - traceData->setData(data); >> } >> >> return fault; >> > > So I see that you moved these lines up to read(), but if we ever call > readBytes() directly (not via read())---which I thought was why you > needed to add this---then shouldn't the equivalent functionality stay > down at this level? >
No. The data needs to be endian converted, and that doesn't make sense at readBytes. > Also, a little longer commit message warning us that you didn't just > add these functions but also rewrote read() and write() in terms of > them would have been helpful. > I -did- send this out for review a while ago :-). Oh well. Gabe _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
