TLM issues

All,

Philipp writes: Shouldn't the DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE macro be called
TLM_DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE? Probably with an backwards-compatible,
deprecated macro provided by the implementation.

Opinions?

---------------

18.1 TLM-1 message passing interfaces

 If objects with non-trivial destructors are passed through the TLM-1
message passing interfaces, it is important that internal copies are
properly destroyed when they are no longer "needed".

 Consider the case of a tlm_fifo< shared_ptr<foo> >. It is important,
that the internal copies in the FIFO are correctly released, after they
have been taken from the FIFO. This is not explicitly mentioned in the
description of the interfaces (or in the lifetime section FWIW). This is
also a bug in the tlm_fifo reference implementation currently.

Opinions?

---------------

Bart writes: 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)

[JA] I am reluctant to change from "TLM-2.0" to "TLM", because "TLM" is a
generic term and this is a specific standard. With SystemC, on the other
hand, the term "SystemC" is obviously already specific to SystemC.

Opinions?

John A

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