Searched hist:12805 (Results 1 - 13 of 13) sorted by relevance
| /gem5/src/systemc/core/ | ||
| H A D | sc_sensitive.cc | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | sensitivity.cc | 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | sensitivity.hh | 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | event.hh | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | sc_spawn.cc | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | event.cc | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | SConscript | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | process.hh | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | sc_module.cc | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | process.cc | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| /gem5/src/systemc/ext/core/ | ||
| H A D | sc_event.hh | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| H A D | sc_port.hh | diff 13206:c944ef4abb48 Fri Sep 14 03:04:00 EDT 2018 Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> systemc: Refactor sensitivities. Dynamic and Static sensitivities used to be represented by the same classes, even though they're (almost) disjoint in how they worked. Also timeouts, which can be used alongside dynamic sensitivities, were handled by the sensitivities themselves. That meant that the sensitivity mechanism had to mix in more types of behaviors, increasing complexity. Also, the non-standard timed_out function Accellera includes is harder to implement if the path for timeouts and regular sensitivities are mixed together. This change splits up dynamic and static sensitivities and splits out timeouts. It also immitates the ordering Accellera uses when going through sensitivities for an event. Static sensitivities are triggered first in reverse order (why?), and then dynamic sensitivities are triggered in what amounts to reverse order. To delete a sensitivity which has been handled, it's swapped with the one in the last position, and then the vector is truncated to drop it at the end. This has the net effect of stirring the dynamic sensitivities, and isn't easily immitated using a different approach, even if other approaches would be more straightforward. Double check addSensitivity for event.hh Change-Id: I1e73dce386b95f68e9d6737deb8bed70ef717e0d Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/12805 Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> Maintainer: Gabe Black <gabeblack@google.com> |
| /gem5/src/python/m5/ | ||
| H A D | SimObject.py | diff 12805:3c900ca6be0a Wed May 02 09:06:00 EDT 2018 Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandberg@arm.com> python: Fix call bug in @cxxMethod when override is True Change-Id: Ifa9efbd329fd01eb13100bc6690e651df2c12294 Signed-off-by: Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandberg@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Javier Setoain <javier.setoain@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Giacomo Travaglini <giacomo.travaglini@arm.com> Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/11514 Reviewed-by: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com> Maintainer: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com> |
Completed in 106 milliseconds