RE: TLM extensions - proposal

Eric,

see below.

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of Roesler, Eric E
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:23 PM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
Cc: Philipp A. Hartmann; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: TLM extensions - proposal

>>Sure, and I'd be OK with that too. Though it seemed there was resistance earlier in the thread to standardizing an extension.

>>Also, there is a slight performance and productivity hit - checking for the extension, managing the extension memory allocation. For cases >>where extensions are already being used it would be trivial, but it to add it when not already using extensions would be a pain from a >>developer POV.

I think the issues you cite are not the main ones that were making me strongly rejecting this path. See
my other emails: an extension is something external to the standard, it would not make it into the IEEE,
it would require additional dependencies, we are fixing something that is inherent to the base protocol, etc.

Regards,

Jerome

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