Re: Draft SystemC LRM for review - URGENT!

Sounds good to me. I would prefer this relaxation.

Thanks,
  Philipp

On 05/05/11 22:42, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>
> I just wanted to be clear about the semantics of enable to avoid
> confusion. I could say "As a consequence of the rules given in [quote
> clause], calling enable does not cause the target process to become
> runnable" (take out the "shall").
>
> John A
>
>
> -----"Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de> wrote: -----
>
> To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> From: "Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> Date: 05/05/2011 09:30PM
> Cc: sofie_vandeputte@yahoo.com, stanleyk@cadence.com, P1666
> Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
> Subject: Re: Draft SystemC LRM for review - URGENT!
>
> Yes, without the corner cases it would be perfectly fine to add it. But
> not necessarily required, is it? IMHO, the rest of the rules already
> imply that the process is not made runnable just by calling enable.
>
> The implementation-defined behaviour is not allowed to break this
> normative rule. Maybe we can move it to a NOTE or make it otherwise
> non-binding (the "shall" is the problem, I think?).
>
> Thanks,
> Philipp
>
>
> On 05/05/11 22:19, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> > Hmm. Do you agree that barring implementation-defined corner cases
> it is
> > true? I cannot qualify every single obligation concerning process
> > control to say "(unless some implementation-defined behavior
> related to
> > a corner case means that it need not hold)". I could omit the
> "under no
> > circumstances", if that is the issue for you.
> >
> > John A
> >
> >
> > -----"Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de> wrote: -----
> >
> > To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
> > From: "Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> > Date: 05/05/2011 09:09PM
> > Cc: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org, sofie_vandeputte@yahoo.com,
> > stanleyk@cadence.com
> > Subject: Re: Draft SystemC LRM for review - URGENT!
> >
> > John, all,
> >
> > there is in fact an issue with respect to the process control
> corner
> > cases. It's in the description of enable (5.6.6.2) on page
> 83, lines
> > 61f, where the draft says:
> >
> > "[CHANGE] Calling enable shall under no circumstances cause the
> > target process instance to become runnable."
> >
> > This effectively prohibits one of the alternatives for an
> implementation
> > to define the disable/resume interaction (5.6.6.11, page 90,
> lines 53ff)
> > in one of the corner cases.
> >
> > Are there pressing reasons to add this restriction to the
> standard?
> >
> > The rest looks good to me, also the annex with the changes between
> > P1666-2005 and P1666-2011. Very useful indeed.
> >
> > Greetings from Oldenburg,
> > Philipp
> >
> >
> > On 05/05/11 18:19, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a draft P1666 SystemC LRM for review prior
> to the
> > > recirculation ballot. Stan wants to start the ballot as soon as
> > > possible, so please review the LRM and shout on this
> reflector if you
> > > see any show-stoppers.
> > >
> > > Every change to the document made since the first ballot has
> been
> > marked
> > > [CHANGE] and shown in red, so simply search for "[CHANGE]"
> in your PDF
> > > viewer. You will see that I have replaced Annex D with a fairly
> > > comprehensive list of changes.
> > >
> > > You can find the draft LRM at:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.eda.org/twiki/pub/P1666/WebHome/1666-2011_May_05_11.pdf
> > >
> <http://www.eda.org/twiki/pub/P1666/WebHome/1666-2011_May_05_11.pdf>
>

-- 
Philipp A. Hartmann
Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany · http://www.offis.de/
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · Skype: phi.har
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.