RE: DECLARE_EXTENDED_PHASE

Agreed.

-Bishnupriya

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 11:03 PM
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.