Re: P1666 review issues from JEITA

Philipp,

Agreed. I will delete that line.

John A

From:
"Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
To:
john.aynsley@doulos.com
Cc:
Hiroshi Imai <hiroshi3.imai@toshiba.co.jp>,
systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Date:
12/01/2011 09:45
Subject:
Re: P1666 review issues from JEITA

John,

I agree, that SC_INCLUDE_DYNAMIC_PROCESSES is an artefact of the OSCI
implementation. But in the example on p. 556 the #define is mentioned
in the LRM.

We should probably strip this from the example. If we keep it there, we
should probably explain it somewhere.

Greetings from Oldenburg,
  Philipp

On 11/01/11 12:57, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
[snip]

> 15
> To enable dynamic process, we must define the macro
> "SC_INCLUDE_DYNAMIC_PROCESSES". But the definition and the explanation
are
> not given in the LRM. They should be in the LRM.
>
> [JA] The following are definitely features of the OSCI PoC simulator,
not
> the IEEE standard
> * SC_INCLUDE_DYNAMIC_PROCESSES
> * SC_INCLUDE_FX
> * SC_FX_EXCLUDE_OTHER
> * SC_DEPRECATION_WARNINGS
> * sc_report_handler::set_actions("/IEEE_Std_1666/deprecated", ...)
> * DEBUG_SYSTEMC
> * SC_SIGNAL_WRITE_CHECK DISABLE

-- 
Philipp A. Hartmann
Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany · http://offis.de/en/
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · Skype: phi.har
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.