Re: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND

Yes

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:13 PM, <john.aynsley@doulos.com> wrote:

> All votes were in favor, so I declare this issue closed.
>
> John A
>
> -----David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com> wrote: -----
>
> To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> From: David C Black <dcblack@xtreme-eda.com>
> Date: 12/06/2010 06:51PM
> Cc: jerome.cornet@st.com, systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org,
> bartv@synopsys.com
> Subject: Re: Data pointer with TLM_IGNORE_COMMAND
>
>
> 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* <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.