nathan binkert wrote: >> We're not forcing all cpu models to support predication, only have to a >> function allows the cpu to understand if an instruction didn't execute >> because it was predicated. If the CPU chooses to do nothing with that, as >> the simple cpus do, then so be it. >> >> It's like saying that we shouldn't have a micro-pc function because Alpha >> doesn't have any micro-coded instructions or we shouldn't have a NextNPC >> because only sparc has delay slots. >> > > I think we're bikeshedding now. Remember that our CPU models are a > superset of what is needed. That's why you put microcode support into > the models. Similarly, I'd expect predication to need to be there > too. Of course there is the danger of such a superset becoming > unwieldy, but when there is no clear right answer, or when it is just > a differing of opinion, I think we should try to err on the side of > allowing the code to be committed. If things truly do become a mess, > then there is always the opportunity to refactor and improve things > later. We also have to be careful not to burden a committer with our > wishes. I may wish that the build system were better, but I shouldn't > stop some from extending the existing one if I'm not actually going to > replace it soon. > > Nate > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >
I still don't think it's a great idea, but I'm outvoted so go ahead. Gabe _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
