> This is not really very easy because it puts WAY too much stuff in a > single class and would cause major compiler strain. Yea, I agree... One consequence is that it would allow a lot of the common ISA code to be fleshed out if you decided to optimize it.
But I guess "overly conservative" isnt the all the way right word for that single class solution (i dont have a better word though!). What you would gain in immediate programmability (theISA->func()), you would probably definitely lose in performance. > Another way to do > it would be to use template specialization making every class that is > normally in the namespace, instead take an ISA class as a template > parameter. (I REALLY wish you could use namespaces in template > parameters, or templatize namespaces, feh...) > > It would probably be easiest to add namespace wrappers around the CPU > objects and use the build system to automate this process. That's an interesting way to think about it....Thanks for making that point... _______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
