RE: reset_signal_is variations

John-

I think it makes sense to do this.

Thanks
Stuart

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:26 AM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: reset_signal_is variations

systemc-2.3.10dec09_beta has the following methods in class sc_module

    void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool );
    void reset_signal_is( const sc_inout<bool>& , bool );
    void reset_signal_is( const sc_out<bool>& , bool );
    void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& , bool );

    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool );
    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_inout<bool>& , bool );
    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_out<bool>& , bool );
    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& , bool );

whereas class sc_spawn_options only contains the following subset:

    void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& , bool );
    void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool );

    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& , bool );
    void async_reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool )

Do we want to extend sc_spawn_options to include the methods for sc_out and sc_inout?

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.