---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/
---
(Updated May 26, 2015, 12:49 p.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/#review6338
---
Any more comments on this patch? It sounds like the discussion as been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/#review6360
---
Ship it!
I can be ok with this for now.
For future reference, I think
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Brad Beckmann wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/#review6338
---
Any more comments on this
On May 12, 2015, 4:33 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
I will think more about this. This is not at all what I would want to do.
I thought about this patch. It is not what I would have done had I wanted to
define multiple structures that inherit from AbstractCacheEntry. In retrospect,
the set of
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/#review6150
---
Can you give a more detailed description of the use case? In what
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2794/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
