Re: New draft LRM and progress

On 19/11/2010 10:23, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have uploaded a new draft LRM including sc_vector and sc_writer_policy.
>

I've looked through that draft up to the end of section 8. I had a few
comments:

p22 f)
", and async_reset_signal_is, and of the" should be
", and async_reset_signal_is, of the"

5.2.1.5
This doesn't currently mention sc_max_time or event starvation - but
it's been mentioned in John's emails that it needs refining to take
account of sc_pause etc.

6.5.2
Does sc_unnamed need adding to the list of namespaces at the beginning
of the standard? Should (or could) sc_unnamed be nested in sc_core?

6.6.4
p66

In the description of void swap(sc_process_handle &) it says that either
handle may be invalid. If *both* were invalid, would it still be true
that H1<H2 would swap to H2 < H1 ? Or is it just invisible since H1 < H2
and H2 < H1 would both return false anyway?

Also later on (6.6.6) it says that a call to the process control member
functions on an invalid handle shall generate a warning - should that
also happen on a call to swap()?

7.13
I don't think Philipp mentioned this in his review - sc_signal_resolved,
does that need an implementation of get_writer_policy?

Similarly for sc_signal_rv 7.17.2

-- 
Alan Fitch
Senior Consultant
Doulos – Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project 
Services
Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Marketing Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 
1AW, UK
Tel:  + 44 (0)1425 471223		Email: alan.fitch@doulos.com	
Fax:  +44 (0)1425 471573		http://www.doulos.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain personal views which are not the views of 
Doulos, unless specifically stated.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.