On 2011-03-29 10:02:01, Gabe Black wrote:
I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I think you moved too much
into the O3 class. There's functionality (pointed out below) that you'll
need to support in InOrder to be compliant with the interface instructions
expect from CPUs,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/529/#review1029
---
I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I think you moved too
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Korey Sewell wrote:
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I
haven't introduced something quirky.
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Korey Sewell wrote:
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I
haven't introduced something quirky.
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Korey Sewell wrote:
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I
haven't introduced something quirky.
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Korey Sewell wrote:
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I
haven't introduced something quirky.
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Korey Sewell wrote:
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I
haven't introduced something quirky.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/529/#review932
---
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to
On 2011-03-03 20:41:09, Ali Saidi wrote:
Please don't ship this until I have a chance to try it, I just want to make
sure it doesn't break ARM_FS/O3.
Sure, I'd welcome a go of things from some other folks to test if I haven't
introduced something quirky.
After there is some commentary,
I think there's been a lot of aversion to virtual functions in the past
because they add some performance overhead. You've got the indirection
through what's basically a function pointer, and you can't really inline
the function because you don't know what it's going to be ahead of time.
The
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/529/
---
Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and Nathan
11 matches
Mail list logo
