Hi Rich,
> I distinctly remember an agreement reached that port ordering would be
> done on the basis of cclock cycles, not on uclock cycles as currently
> worded.
This is what I remember as well. We decided that output messages
should be ordered such that their cycle stamps would be seen as
monotonically increasing. Ordering within the same cycle stamp
is undefined, i.e., up to the implementation. This is how I remember
what we decided.
> I think "uclock" should be replaced with "cclock" in these two
> paragraphs.
Actually, those paragraphs are to be removed since we decided to
remove port priorities. We may have to add a section somewhere
explaining the cycle stamp based ordering.
Per
Received on Tue Aug 3 05:31:41 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 05:31:47 PDT