> 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.
You can't make an ISA independent CPU model. It's just not possible. It must use virtual functions, templates, or #defines. Virtual functions are out because of performance. We don't really use templates for the ISA, but it would be nice if we did. We mostly use #defines (THE_ISA) and it would be nice to move more to templates, but I think we'll have to keep using #defines and the solution is to then use build tricks to wrap stuff in namespaces so we can compile the same file multiple times and not have symbol conflicts. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
