RE: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN

Any other opinions? Otherwise I will leave SC_FORK/SC_JOIN alone.

Philipp - can you see any obvious way for this to fit with sc_vector, as
Bart was suggesting?

John A

From:
Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>,
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
11/01/2011 18:28
Subject:
RE: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN

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