RE: Straw Polls - tlm_fifo rendezvous and reset_event

All,

I am not going to hold up any progress on this. It's not a big issue, though I would usually prefer well defined semantics over implementation defined behavior.

Best regards,

Tor

---
Tor Jeremiassen, Ph.D.
Simulation and Modeling CTO
SDO Foundational Tools
Texas Instruments                    Ph:    281 274 3483
P.O. Box 1443, MS 730                Fax:   281 274 2703
Houston, TX 77251-1443               Email: tor@ti.com<mailto:tor@ti.com>
________________________________
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:22 AM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Straw Polls - tlm_fifo rendezvous and reset_event
All,
Re. the straw poll about adding rendezvous semantic to tlm_fifo, the "votes" were as follows:
A) Make the behavior implementation-defined. This means no change to the current code, but a statement in the LRM that users should not rely on the current (rather useless) behavior
5 votes (Philipp, Bishnupriya, Stuart, Hiroshi, John)
B) Change the LRM and the implementation to use rendezvous semantics, i.e. both writer and read may block and wait for one another.
1 vote (Tor)
Hence I propose we take option A, unless Tor wants to argue that this would be a shop-stopper for T.I.
Re. the proposal to add a reset_event, there were 3 votes in favour (Bishnupriya, Stuart, David) and none against.
Hence I propose we add reset_event to the LRM
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.