RE: reset_signal_is and multi-ports

Thanks, Stuart. Does anyone else have an opinion?

John A

From:
Stuart Swan <stuart@cadence.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>,
"philipp.hartmann@offis.de" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>,
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
13/09/2010 18:59
Subject:
RE: reset_signal_is and multi-ports

John, All-
 
We have not seen the need for reset_signal_is() for multiports. We?re
certainly willing
to listen if others have reasons why they think it is necessary, but right
now we think should
skip it and focus on other things.
 
-Stuart
 
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [
mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of
john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:50 AM
To: philipp.hartmann@offis.de; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: reset_signal_is and multi-ports
 
All,

Philipp wrote:

"Regarding multi-ports for all variants, it would be enough to have

template< typename N >
void reset_signal_is( const sc_port<sc_signal_in_if<bool>,N>& port
                    , bool level );
template< typename N >
void reset_signal_is( const sc_port<sc_signal_inout_if<bool>,N>& port
                    , bool level );

since sc_out<> is also derived from the generic inout port, right?
An implementation of course could still drop the templates internally."

Does the WG wish to pursue the idea of defining reset_signal_is for
multiports? Are there any futher proposals?

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.