On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Gabriel Michael Black <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you have ISA X and it needs to set the PC in some weird way y, then you > need an method for Y on the PC object. You also need an operand Y that knows > how to use y to manage the PC. The ISA needs to be able to define that > operand type, or the parser needs to have it built in. The second is a bad > idea, I think. The first might work, but it makes the workings of the > description more elaborately obfuscate the end result. This also assumes > whatever you're doing can be parameterized one dimensionally. > > I think what you're proposing might work, but honestly I'm really tired of > this change. If we're going to add whole new features to the parser, lets do > that as a follow up.
I didn't mean to imply that every PC-related update would have to be done via operands, or that major changes to the parser are justified. I just think that in the cases where we previously had simple statements like 'PC = foo' or 'NPC= bar', and we could keep those as is by redefining those existing operands, it seems to me that it would be preferable to do that. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
