Re: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

I also vote yes.

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org <owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
Cc: jerome.cornet@st.com <jerome.cornet@st.com>; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>; bartv@synopsys.com <bartv@synopsys.com>
Sent: Mon Dec 06 00:20:15 2010
Subject: Re: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

I vote "yes".

Best regards,
Hiroshi Imai

At 05 Dec 2010 18:45:53 +0000 john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> All,
>
> Personally, I accept Jerome's argument that allowing the GP data pointer to be null when the command is TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND would make more sense and would not cause any serious backward compatibility problems. A similar relaxation of the rules would apply to the GP data length attribute: we would allow it to be 0.  (Jerome has already given a detailed analysis on the reflector, which I will not repeat here.)
>
> Do people agree? Votes please.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John A
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

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