On 02/02/11 14:12, nathan binkert wrote: > > I'm ok with putting it in or leaving it out. I realized these settings > would be lost across a checkpoint and wanted to put this out there as a > solution, but I think I even mentioned in an email a while ago I wasn't sure > how this stuff would interact with checkpointing. > > My guess is that it's not really necessary and potentially not desired > since you may go from a system without timesync to one with it or vice > versa. It seems that it's just a matter of the user providing the > same parameters twice in a row, no? (We generally already "ask" users > to do this unless they're explicitly trying to change something) > > Nate
I honestly don't know how all that works, but that sounds plausible. I'll leave out this change for now. Gabe
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
