Review Board 2.0.15


ISA: Get rid of old, unused utility functions cluttering up the ISAs.

Review Request #213 - Created Aug. 22, 2010 and submitted

Information
Gabe Black
gem5
Reviewers
Default 
ISA: Get rid of old, unused utility functions cluttering up the ISAs.

   

  


 


 

  

  









  
 


  

 


















 

  


 


  



   

   
Nathan Binkert

   
Posted  (Aug. 23, 2010, 12:11 a.m.)


  


  


  

   



  

   

   
    
    
   


  




   







    

     
     

      

       
        

         
          src/arch/alpha/ev5.cc
          

           (Diff revision 1)

          
         
        

       
       
        
 


        
 


       
      

     

    

    


     
Is this all duplicate code?




  

   

   
    
    

   
  1. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    I'm not sure why it was there. If I had to guess, I'd say it was moved there to factor out its Alpha-ness, replaced with the Interrupts object mechanism at some point, and never deleted. There are several instances of other functions called processInterrupts defined in the CPUs.
    
    
    
   
    2. 


   
  2. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    Yes, but is it somewhere else?  I have a hard time believing that ALPHA_FS really works without this code.  Ali, can you comment, did our switch to Tsunami make this irrelevant?
    
    
    
   
    3. 


   
  3. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    Like I said, yes, in the Interrupts object. See getInterrupt in src/arch/alpha/interrupts.hh.
    
    
    
   
    4. 

   


  


    


   



  

 


  

 

















 



 

  


 


  



   

   
Ali Saidi

   
Posted  (Aug. 23, 2010, 3:18 a.m.)


  


  


  

   



  

   

   
    
    
   


  




   







    

     
     

      

       
        

         
          src/arch/alpha/ev5.cc
          

           (Diff revision 1)

          
         
        

       
       
        
 


        
 


       
      

     

    

    


     
This is all dead code? Are you sure?




  

   

   
    
    

   
  1. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    Yes. Mostly. :-) If you grep for the function name you'll see some hits, but those are CPUs defining their own versions and then calling them. I think that's what this function might have been originally. I was careful when I put this together and I built all the targets with it in place, so I'm pretty confident this was all dead or otherwise inert code.
    
    
    
   
    2.