Hi Nilay, Yes, this is not an easy issue to fix. First to answer your other question, I believe TBE stands for Transaction Buffer Entry, or something to that effect. As you suggested, we can pass in the cache entry and possibly even the TBE entry into the trigger function. Thus all actions will implicitly include these two parameters as inputs and not require continually lookups or even local variables. However, I believe to make this work we need to change the semantics for allocating and deallocating cache and TBE entries. In particular, these operations probably should be handled by specialized operators (similar to trigger) that correctly manage the pointers underneath.
Does that make sense? Let me know if you'd like to brainstorm more about this over a phone conversation. Brad -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:16 AM To: M5 Developer List Subject: Re: [m5-dev] Implementation of findTagInSet I have made changes to SLICC to support local reference variables. I think we should reference variables in functions where back to back calls are made to lookup/getCacheEntry functions. Overall, I am still unclear how can we handle this issue. Nilay On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Nilay Vaish wrote: > Is it possible to have variables local to a function in .sm files. I > am thinking of storing getCacheEntry()'s return value in a local variable. > > Nilay > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Beckmann, Brad wrote: > >> Hi Nilay, >> >> I don't think we want to replace the implicit Address parameter >> inside the state machines with the CacheEntry parameter, but we might >> want to supplement the state machine functions to include both. I >> don't think we can replace the Address parameter because certain >> transitions within a state machine don't operate on a CacheEntry, but >> they do operate on an Address. However, as we discussed last week, >> we might be able to pass the CacheEntry into the trigger function >> along with the Address, which is then implicitly included in all >> actions. The key in my mind is that we want to maintain the current >> programming invariant that SLICC does not expose pointers, but >> underneath the generated code needs to manage that sometimes the >> CacheEntry pointer may equal NULL. In particular, I would like to >> minimize any added complexity we put on the setState function. I >> think we can make this work, but we need to think through the details, >> including how replacements are handled. >> >> I have a few other things I need to take care of first, but I may be >> able to look into the details of how to make this work by the end of the >> week. >> >> Brad _______________________________________________ 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
