Re: Event starvation

Hi John,

For backward compatibility reasons, would it make sense to use another function for the
new behavior, e.g. sc_run(100, SC_NS) ?

-Martin

On 2010-11-19 11:37, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A few of us have been having a side conversation about how we incorporate sc_pause into the scheduler. One issue that
> we have thrown up that I would like to refer back to everyone is what happens on event starvation.
>
> As we have already discussed, the current OSCI sim does this...
>
> sc_start(100, SC_NS); // Event starvation at sc_time(50, SC_NS)
> sc_assert( sc_time_stamp() == sc_time(100, SC_NS) );
>
> We have proposed making the following change
>
> sc_start(100, SC_NS); // Event starvation at sc_time(50, SC_NS)
> sc_assert( sc_time_stamp() == sc_time(50, SC_NS) );
>
> This is a change to 1666-2005 and is not backward compatible with the current OSCI sim, but we believe it is the
> better solution. The old behavior can be achieved as follows:
>
> ev.notify(100, SC_NS);
> sc_start(100, SC_NS); // Simulation will run for the full 100 ns
>
> Is everyone okay with this change?
>
> 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.