I would vote to leave it as is.
-Bishnupriya
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:10 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN
All,
Bart writes:
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?
[JA] What does everyone think? Do we want to consider such an enhancement at this point? Note that sc_process_handle is not derived from sc_object, so having an sc_vector of process handles is not possible at this point. Having an sc_vector of process objects might be possible, but would be unsafe.
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.Received on Tue Jan 11 10:29:08 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 11 2011 - 10:29:09 PST