Russ, Maybe instead of continuing with this stream of emails, we should each take some time to make sure that we understand each other positions. I admit that I don't understand yet how can you build "true streaming mode" (for example by Per's definition) with emulation finite speed and memory resources. I asked for some clarification in my pervious email. I suggest that you take the time to understand the batching knob proposal. I think that you have established an opinion prematurely. I actually think that my batching proposal can serve your streaming requirements such that it becomes as sub-mode in the concurrent execution model. I also think that users who wish to use only an alternating execution model should not be precluded from using fifos. We need to review both proposals along the following two important criterions a. Determinism - I think we'll need to decide an acceptable level of determinism in each as absolute determinism is not existent. b. Reusability of transactors - The most important criteria is ease of modeling and reuse of transactors from simulation to acceleration. Maybe a working group session at the committee can address that. Shabtay >> I think you'll agree that once the mechanism introduces *actual* >> non-deterministic behavior, then the free-running use model may as >> well be used? > >If by actual non-deterministic behavior you mean behavior that it is >impossible for the user to constrain to become deterministic no matter >what he does, then I would agree. But I don't see Shabtay's batching >`knobs' being in this category except perhaps for the free-run switch >(was it you or Shabtay that first introduced that?). > >Per > >-- >Per Bojsen Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com> >Zaiq Technologies, Inc. WWW: http://www.zaiqtech.com >78 Dragon Ct. Tel: 781 721 8229 >Woburn, MA 01801 Fax: 781 932 7488 > >Received on Wed Jun 22 16:23:16 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 16:23:19 PDT