Review Board 2.0.15


fixed drainCount

Review Request #1092 - Created March 11, 2012 and updated

Information
Andrew Lukefahr
gem5
default
Reviewers
Default
Changeset 8896:6f0169698281
---------------------------
fixed drainCount
Allows multiple switchouts of O3CPU using the attached config file.  

Both CPU's maintain separate (overlapping) seqNums, see ./src/cpu/o3/cpu.cc:1239 for further detail... 

Issue Summary

6 2 4 0
Description From Last Updated Status
== true is unnecessary and makes code less readable. Tony Gutierrez May 16, 2012, 3:12 a.m. Open
I know NULL is used extensively in gem5 but, should we prefer 0? Tony Gutierrez May 16, 2012, 3:12 a.m. Open
Review request changed
Updated (March 16, 2012, 12:40 a.m.)

Summary:

-o3cpu : multiple switchout
+fixed drainCount

Description:

~  

Changeset 8896:edfab690415a

  ~

Changeset 8896:6f0169698281

   
   

fixed drainCount

Diff:

Revision 10 (+98 -19)

Show changes

Posted (May 2, 2012, 5:53 a.m.)
anyone have any issues with this or should I commit it?
  1. There are some redundant whitespace changes that should be removed. In addition, the port rejigging is not up to date (still using getPeer setPeer), so the patch won't apply cleanly.
    
    Other than that, I'm all happy.
  2. If you wait a month or so, I'll be @ ARM Austin.  I can update the patch then.  
Posted (May 16, 2012, 3:12 a.m.)
I've recently tried using this patch to get switchout functionality working, as others on the mailing list have pointed out there are still many assertions failures as well as failures related to the specific ISA being used.
src/cpu/o3/commit_impl.hh (Diff revision 10)
 
 
== true is unnecessary and makes code less readable.
src/cpu/o3/fetch_impl.hh (Diff revision 10)
 
 
I know NULL is used extensively in gem5 but, should we prefer 0?
  1. Why would we use 0 where it clearly relates to a null pointer? Plenty compilers will even warn about using 0 in this case, and with c++11 it is not even allowed afaik.