P1666 review issues from Synopsys

Bart,

Here is my response to your review issues, excluding those issues for
which I consider further discussion is definitely required. Of course, you
are free to dispute the issues below where I consider no change is
required.

My comments are marked [JA] below

John A

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??

[JA] The front matter will be revised as part of the formal hand-over to
the IEEE.
 

Section1:

1.1: should we still refer to ANSI? It?s ISO/IEC and <snip>

[JA] I've replaced ANSI with ISO/IEC.

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??

[JA] See 5.2.1 para "For the sake of clarity, imperative language is used
in this description." Each statement takes the form of an instruction to
do something. (Of course, I could spend time re-writing the whole section
if that is what people want.)

5.4.1: h) ?? to create statically spawned processes?

[JA] Changed to "static, spawned processes" (i.e. processes that are both
static processes and spawned processes)

5.5.7: sc_pending_activity_at_current_time: what is the default return
value (e.g. prior to start of simulation)

[JA] Before simulation, none of the conditions (if and only if...) hold by
which sc_pending_activity_at_current_time returns true, so it returns
false.
 

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?)

[JA] See Philipp's answer on the reflector.
 

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?

[JA] See David's answer on the reflector.
 

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