RE: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

I vote yes also.

Thanks
Stuart

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bishnupriya Bhattacharya
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:58 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com; jerome.cornet@st.com; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org; bartv@synopsys.com
Subject: RE: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

I vote yes.

Thanks,
-Bishnupriya

________________________________
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 12:16 AM
To: jerome.cornet@st.com; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org; bartv@synopsys.com
Subject: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND
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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
--
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.