RE: Version number macros

Jerome,

I neither agree nor disagree, but I am still not sure exactly what changes
you are proposing. Could you spell it out for me, please?

To spell out my position, so far I am only working to the following
principles

* We want backward-compatibility (thought perhaps 99% is good enough) with
both the SystemC and TLM-2.0 LRMs and implementations
* We want separate versions (etc) for SystemC and TLM-2.0 rather than a
single merged set
* The resultant two sets of definitions should be mutually consistent

I would also note that we are not obliged to put the full set of
definitions (as found in the two OSCI implementations) within the P1666
LRM. We could chose a subset. We do not necessarily want P1666 to be
highly specific since it may (or may not) end up with multiple
implementations.

Are you suggesting the P1666 should mandate specific values for the
version API to indicate either 1666 or TLM-2.0 compliance (whatever that
would mean, opening a can of worms!)

Thanks,

John A

From:
Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>,
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
05/10/2010 10:04
Subject:
RE: Version number macros

John,
 
sorry to insist... I perfectly understand that SYSTEMC_VERSION_* macros
are a way to identify a specific implementation version within a vendor?s
lineage.
 
However, I do think that applying the same reasoning to the TLM_VERSION_*
macros does neither seem to be useful nor logical. Whereas it is true
that TLM itself can be implemented ?differently? by each vendor (to add
specific instrumentations, etc.), particular implementations details
can already be identified through the SystemC version macros, and it is
important to be able, say, to rely on TLM_VERSION_MAJOR being 2 or
greater
to be sure that TLM-2 itself is implemented. Isn?t it?
 
Jerome
 
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [
mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of
john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:14 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: RE: Version number macros

To answer Jerome, sure, the actual choice of version numbers is
implementation-defined. The standard only defines the formal structure.
The OSCI simulator follows a specific lineage of version numbering. Other
vendors may base their versions on the OSCI numbering or may do their own
thing. These strings relate to the implementation itself, NOT to the
version of the IEEE standard the implementation claims to support. That
would be presumptuous!

Does that work?

John A

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