Re: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN

Totally concur. Take this up on LWG.

On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:26 AM, david.long@doulos.com wrote:

> I don't particularly like the SC_FORK SC_JOIN macros - it would be good to have a neater solution that made it simple to write fork .. join (and fork .. join_none) in SystemC processes. However, I don't think there is time to properly explore the best way to implement this now - it should be something we next time instead.
>
> Dave L
>
>
>
> From: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> To: "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>, philipp.hartmann@offis.de, bartv@synopsys.com
> Date: 12/01/2011 14:17
> Subject: RE: SC_FORK and SC_JOIN
> Sent by: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

------------------------------------------------------
David C Black, System-Level Specialist
XtremeEDA USA Corporation http://www.Xtreme-EDA.com
(Consulting, Services & Training for all your ESL design assurance needs)
Voice: 512.850.4322 Skype: dcblack FAX: 888.467.4609

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