Re: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

From: David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>
Date: Mon Dec 06 2010 - 10:50:21 PST

yes

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:45 PM, <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* <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.
Received on Mon Dec 6 10:51:25 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 06 2010 - 10:51:27 PST