---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2779/#review6369
---
Ship it!
Assuming you add the assert in the comment above, it looks
On May 12, 2015, 3:48 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
This patch is incorrect on a couple of counts. We are not in 32-bit world.
Secondly, you should expose the getAddress() function as we expose
functions related to other classes.
Brad Beckmann wrote:
This comment is dissappointing
On Mon, 18 May 2015, Brad Beckmann wrote:
On May 12, 2015, 3:48 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
This patch is incorrect on a couple of counts. We are not in 32-bit world.
Secondly, you should expose the getAddress() function as we expose functions
related to other classes.
Brad Beckmann
On May 12, 2015, 3:48 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
This patch is incorrect on a couple of counts. We are not in 32-bit world.
Secondly, you should expose the getAddress() function as we expose
functions related to other classes.
This comment is dissappointing and unprofessional. I'm
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2779/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2779/#review6132
---
This patch is incorrect on a couple of counts. We are not in 32-bit
