> On Sept. 4, 2015, 11:34 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
> > So there has been a lot of discussion on this patch, including splitting
> > the patch up, but I have not seen a new version of the patch reposted.
> >
> > Again I really dislike these patches which touch all the .sm files. The
> >
> On Sept. 4, 2015, 11:34 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
> > So there has been a lot of discussion on this patch, including splitting
> > the patch up, but I have not seen a new version of the patch reposted.
> >
> > Again I really dislike these patches which touch all the .sm files. The
> >
> On Sept. 4, 2015, 11:34 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
> > So there has been a lot of discussion on this patch, including splitting
> > the patch up, but I have not seen a new version of the patch reposted.
> >
> > Again I really dislike these patches which touch all the .sm files. The
> >
> On Sept. 4, 2015, 11:34 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
> > So there has been a lot of discussion on this patch, including splitting
> > the patch up, but I have not seen a new version of the patch reposted.
> >
> > Again I really dislike these patches which touch all the .sm files. The
> >
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/
---
(Updated Sept. 5, 2015, 12:50 a.m.)
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
On Aug. 14, 2015, 2:08 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote:
src/mem/slicc/symbols/StateMachine.py, line 609
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/diff/1/?file=48684#file48684line609
A quick grep indicates that the primitive variable tag may no longer be
necessary in SLICC. If so, can you remove
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/#review6938
---
I think this is a really smart patch, and hope that Brad will agree.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/#review6937
---
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/#review6946
---
src/mem/slicc/ast/ObjDeclAST.py (line 57)
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
src/mem/protocol/MOESI_hammer-dir.sm, line 197
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/diff/1/?file=48675#file48675line197
Is moving the global fwd_set variable to a local variable orthogonal to
the rest of this patch?
You are right. I
On Aug. 13, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
Recently we discarded patch 2786 because it optionally allowed SLICC
programs to specify whether an object is a pointer or not. Our patch was
motivated because PerfectCacheMemory differed from CacheMemory and was a
pretty special
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3002/
---
Review request for Default.
Repository: gem5
Description
---
Changeset
17 matches
Mail list logo