RE: Draft LRM for Review

John,

First of all: excellent work (again!) on this LRM.
We've reviewed it and have a couple of questions and remarks.

First pages:
-brush up the participants section, still the 2005 version, should we have 2 sections: 1 representing 2005 and another representing the 2010 update...? E.g. CoWare is no longer around, so my affiliation for this IEEE work is Synopsys...
-same for the TLM2 section: this is the IEEE version not the OSCI version, not sure what to do here...?

Section1:
1.1: should we still refer to ANSI? It's ISO/IEC and should we mention a version of C++ that we're compatible with?
1.2, 1.3 (and other sections): you refer to 'SystemC and TLM-2.0 class libraries' although we also standardize TLM-1.0, so maybe leave out the version (we do the same for SystemC itself anyway)

Section 5:
5.2.1.2 paragraph4 doesn't read like English to me (i.e. It's not clear what it is saying): "A process may execute an immediate notification, in which case determine which process..."
5.4.1: h) "... to create statically spawned processes"
5.5.7: sc_pending_activity_at_current_time: what is the default return value (e.g. prior to start of simulation)

Section 6:
6.6.6.1: resume: what if a method resumes itself when executing the associated ftion till the end after a suspend call? Same for enable
6.5.7: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN: isn't the macro based approach a little dated? Shouldn't we standardize on an sc_fork_join API with an sc_vector for the set of processes that are intended to be spawned?

Section 7:
7.4.4: why limit the sc_many_writers policy to different delta cycles? If I have 2 TLM2 initiators it's likely that they will evaluate in the same delta cycle so I still cannot write to a signal from the TLM2 initiators (although there is a simple workaround, but that one is rather silly...)

Section 9:
9.6.1: why are we defining macro's for version and copyright? Shouldn't we stick to functions and variables only, or at least indicate a preference?

Regards,
Bart

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:20 PM
To: Stan Krolikoski; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Cc: sofie_vandeputte@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Draft LRM for Review

Folks,

I have posted the final draft P1666 LRM for review. This replaces all previous drafts. I will not be posting any further drafts until the review period has ended in January:

http://www.eda.org/twiki/pub/P1666/WebHome/P1666-2010-12-15-draft.pdf
http://www.eda.org/twiki/pub/P1666/WebHome/P1666-2010-12-15-draft-with-labels.pdf

I will collate any review comments sent to the reflector.

All the agreed enhancements have been included. We made it!

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.