I agree.
On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:33 AM, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> 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, 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.Received on Sun Jan 16 05:54:32 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 16 2011 - 05:54:37 PST