Re: SC_NOBASE

Philipp,

Agreed. I have simply made SC_NOBASE implementation-defined.

John A

-----"Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de> wrote: -----
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
From: "Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
Date: 12/03/2010 08:00PM
Cc: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: Re: SC_NOBASE

John, All,

just to get this off the list:

Yes, it's not good to have names in the LRM that are not documented in
any way. So let's add this.

IMHO, the best would be to make this implementation-defined, to avoid
problems in existing implementations that currently do something
different than the OSCI simulator in that case.

I don't expect this to be used (much) in user code anyhow.

Greetings from Oldenburg,
  Philipp

On 28/11/10 10:41, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> All,
>
> SC_NOBASE is mentionion the the LRM as an enumeration literal within type sc_numrep, but its behavior is not defined anyway. In the OSCI sim at behaves like SC_DEC.
>
> Should we document SC_NOBASE in the LRM? As = SC_DEC? As implementation-defined? Something else?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John A
>
>
>

-- 
Philipp A. Hartmann
Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany · http://www.offis.de/
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · Skype: phi.har
 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.