RE: IM18

-----Original Message-----
From: Bojsen, Per [mailto:bojsen@zaiqtech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:38 PM
To: Pryor, Duaine; ''itc@eda.org' '
Subject: RE: IM18

Hi Duaine,

> We have found that the simplest user semantics for clock stoppage are
> that stopping ANY clock stops the underlying 1/1 cclock. We therefore
> propose that this become the semantics for stopping any clock. Of
> course we would have to discuss backwards compatibility for current
> implementations which take advantage of the current "slide to a halt"
> semantics.

Just for my clarification, you are proposing to move away from the
`just-in-time' semantics that is in 1.0? The new semantics would
be `stop-right-now-(almost)' semantics, right? (The `almost' is to
cover the case that the 1/1 cclock is slower than uclock).

DWP=> Yes.

I have no problem with this. It would have the added benefit of
simplifying clock control implementation. As for backwards
compatibility, perhaps we can add a new parameter to the clock
control macro that selects the semantics and have its default
value be the `just-in-time' semantics?

When using the new semantics the ClockNum parameter of the
SceMiClockControl macro is no longer necessary, right?

Per
Received on Wed Mar 24 13:15:20 2004