Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches

2010-01-15 Thread Steve Reinhardt
Thanks for getting these patches out, Brad. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Brad Beckmann brad.beckm...@amd.com wrote:  - These patches do not remove the old ruby config and rubymem files.   However, once these patches are checked in, those old files won't be needed.   Anyone have an opinion

Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches

2010-01-15 Thread nathan binkert
 - These patches do not remove the old ruby config and rubymem files.   However, once these patches are checked in, those old files won't be needed.   Anyone have an opinion on how long they would like those files to stick around?  I would like to delete them as soon as we can. Why not

Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches

2010-01-15 Thread nathan binkert
Unless there's ever a reason why a user would want to set this low bit to something other than the log2 of the block size, then this value should just be calculated in C++, in my opinion. I would agree with this. The reason it doesn't work is because math operations on proxy values have to

Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches

2010-01-15 Thread Beckmann, Brad
To: M5 Developer List Subject: Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches Unless there's ever a reason why a user would want to set this low bit to something other than the log2 of the block size, then this value should just be calculated in C++, in my opinion. I would agree

Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches

2010-01-15 Thread Beckmann, Brad
: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:52 AM To: M5 Developer List Subject: Re: [m5-dev] [PATCH 00 of 41] Ruby Config Updated Patches  - These patches do not remove the old ruby config and rubymem files.  However, once these patches are checked in, those old files won't be needed.  Anyone have