Are instances of class objects uniquely identifiable and usable as keys?
Only if they provide a __hash__ function, but in theory it should be possible.
If so, you could use the class as a key using the same mechanism instead
of the string name with Param.blah. So then you use class Foo to look
On Jun 13, 2008, at 11:48 AM, nathan binkert wrote:
Are instances of class objects uniquely identifiable and usable as
keys?
Only if they provide a __hash__ function, but in theory it should be
possible.
If so, you could use the class as a key using the same mechanism
instead
of
The key difference here is between circular references amongst instances
and amongst classes. Circular references amongst instances does not work
in the python because it creates a cycle in the object hierarchy which
is why the C++ trick is necessary. If you're circular references are in
the
Any comments anybody? I have a few to add. First, as I went through the
SimObject definitions and was taking out cxx_namespace, there were a few
cases where the class name was still the same as type, just in a
different namespace. It's slightly redundant to have to put the class
name in
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Gabe Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about instead of Params.some_class the syntax would be
Params(some_class) where Params is more like a class than a module? Then
you could look up the information for the class you're dealing with
without ever having to
How about instead of Params.some_class the syntax would be
Params(some_class) where Params is more like a class than a module? Then
you could look up the information for the class you're dealing with
without ever having to give it a globally consistent name.
Seems reasonable to me... I don't
I was wondering why we had both 'type' and 'cxx_classname'... last
time I recall working on that code (before Nate finished the params
auto-gen stuff), the point of 'type' was to be the C++ class name.
When is the Params.Foo thing different from the Python class name,
and is there a good
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about instead of Params.some_class the syntax would be
Params(some_class) where Params is more like a class than a module? Then
you could look up the information for the class you're dealing with
without ever having
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM, nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering why we had both 'type' and 'cxx_classname'... last
time I recall working on that code (before Nate finished the params
auto-gen stuff), the point of 'type' was to be the C++ class name.
When is the
I'm not sure any of that fully explains why we have both attributes
though. It is important to remember as in the cache builder example
that the 'type' is really something that identifies the function that
creates the C++ object and isn't necessarily the type of the resulting
object (or even
nathan binkert wrote:
I'm not sure any of that fully explains why we have both attributes
though. It is important to remember as in the cache builder example
that the 'type' is really something that identifies the function that
creates the C++ object and isn't necessarily the type of the
It won't, but if you use the attached patch it seems to. Let me know if
it looks good and I'll tack it onto my queue. Also, is there a solid
reason the create functions can't end up in a namespace other than the
global one? I'm ending up with some pretty horrible names trying to make
sure
What about making Enums recognize cxx_namespace too? That would be
pretty handy although I'm not sure how feasible. There seems to be a
global list of them that would probably get confused if there was more
than one with the same name, even if they were in separate modules.
Gabe
Gabe Black
It won't, but if you use the attached patch it seems to. Let me know if
it looks good and I'll tack it onto my queue.
Patch looks good.
Also, is there a solid
reason the create functions can't end up in a namespace other than the
global one? I'm ending up with some pretty horrible names
That makes sense to me. I can do that at some point or if you'd rather
that'd be fine too.
Gabe
nathan binkert wrote:
It won't, but if you use the attached patch it seems to. Let me know if
it looks good and I'll tack it onto my queue.
Patch looks good.
Actually, does it make sense to get
Whoever gets to it. If you don't want to do it instead of the simple
patch you wrote, we can put it on the todo list. In general, that
code is getting pretty messy and needs some TLC.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Gabe Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That makes sense to me. I can do that at
I'm just starting on making the BIOSey tables and configuration
information, like the e820 map which was forcing there to be 4 gigs of
memory, available through SimObjects. There are a bunch of hierarchical
tables for, for example, the DMI information, and I'm concerned that if
I add a
17 matches
Mail list logo
