Re: reset_signal_is variations

John,

Yes, it should be extend for consistency.

Hiroshi Imai
Chair of SystemC WG, JEITA

At 15 Jul 2010 17:25:36 +0100 john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> 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, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

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