Re: reset_signal_is

If I understand the superset, it would allow binding reset to a signal that
came through a port, which seems desirable.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:51 AM, <john.aynsley@doulos.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Bishnupriya raised the following point a while back:
>
> The LRM specifies 2 signatures for reset_signal_is
>
> void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool );
> void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal<bool>& , bool );
>
> (The process control extensions spec uses the above signatures)
>
> The 4feb06 kit implements the following 2 signatures
>
> void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& port, bool level );
> void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& iface, bool level );
> <---------- this is a superset of what the LRM says
>
> Should the LRM be modified (in the future) to allow the superset that the
> 4feb06 kit allows?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John A
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.