I don't have a problem with it... I think the original intent was just to make sure people used the accessors to check the values, but as long as the flags field is still protected that shouldn't be an issue.
Steve On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone oppose exposing the StaticInst Flags enum as public > instead of protected? The change is so simple I thought I'd avoid > sending out a patch at least for now. It would make my life easier if I > can pass flags into a StaticInst constructorfrom something that isn't a > StaticInst, and it seems fairly innocuous. > > Gabe > _______________________________________________ > 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
