Searched hist:7453 (Results 1 - 7 of 7) sorted by relevance
| /gem5/src/mem/slicc/ast/ | ||
| H A D | EnqueueStatementAST.py | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| /gem5/src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/ | ||
| H A D | Message.hh | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| /gem5/src/mem/ruby/network/simple/ | ||
| H A D | Throttle.cc | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| H A D | PerfectSwitch.cc | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| /gem5/src/mem/ruby/system/ | ||
| H A D | DMASequencer.cc | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| H A D | Sequencer.cc | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
| /gem5/src/mem/slicc/symbols/ | ||
| H A D | Type.py | diff 7453:1a5db3dd0f62 Fri Jun 11 02:17:00 EDT 2010 Nathan Binkert <nate@binkert.org> ruby: get rid of RefCnt and Allocator stuff use base/refcnt.hh This was somewhat tricky because the RefCnt API was somewhat odd. The biggest confusion was that the the RefCnt object's constructor that took a TYPE& cloned the object. I created an explicit virtual clone() function for things that took advantage of this version of the constructor. I was conservative and used clone() when I was in doubt of whether or not it was necessary. I still think that there are probably too many instances of clone(), but hopefully not too many. I converted several instances of const MsgPtr & to a simple MsgPtr. If the function wants to avoid the overhead of creating another reference, then it should just use a regular pointer instead of a ref counting ptr. There were a couple of instances where refcounted objects were created on the stack. This seems pretty dangerous since if you ever accidentally make a reference to that object with a ref counting pointer, bad things are bound to happen. |
Completed in 91 milliseconds