Date: Sat Jan 15 2011 - 09:39:08 PST
I agree.
[cid:image002.jpg@01CBB498.0EB59140]<http://www.cadence.com/>
Michael McNamara | Vice President and General Manager, System Level Design
M: 1.408.348.7025 W: www.cadence.com<http://www.cadence.com/> E: mcnamara@cadence.com
[cid:image003.png@01CBB498.0EB59140]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeltymcnamara> [cid:image004.gif@01CBB498.0EB59140] <http://www.verilog.com/>
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:33 AM
To: P1666 Technical WG
Subject: DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE
All,
Let's see if we can pick off and close those outstanding issues. First, from Philipp:
"Shouldn't the DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE macro be called TLM_DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE? Probably with an backwards-compatible, deprecated macro provided by the implementation."
I propose we do exactly as Philipp suggests:
1. Standardize the macro name TLM_DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE
2. List DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE in the annex as deprecated
3. The OSCI TLM-2.0 implementation can support both
Opinions?
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.
