> On 2011-06-08 22:52:15, Gabe Black wrote:
> > I think you missed some (maybe just one) version of PC state defined in the 
> > ISAs themselves. ARM may be the only one, but you should double check to be 
> > sure. Also, for all these you could define them using ==, something like 
> > return !(*this == opc);

The "!(*this == opc)" is interesting. If you do it that way, it's definitely 
more programmable for the long term since one change to the equals operator 
definition will propagate. But, is that way adding two extra operations there? 
1 to dereference the this pointer and then another to do the NOT operation? The 
"==" operator is the more used operator but if for some reason the "!=" 
operator become popular within gem5 wouldnt it be slightly slower?


- Korey


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/738/#review1303
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2011-06-08 22:46:05, Korey Sewell wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/738/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-06-08 22:46:05)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and 
> Nathan Binkert.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> cpus/isa: add a != operator for pcstate
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/arch/generic/types.hh 77d12d8f7971 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/738/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Korey
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
gem5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to