FW: Re: more on Bernard's SCE-MI 2.0 issue

From: Brian Bailey <bbaileyconsulting_at_.....>
Date: Wed Jun 27 2007 - 08:38:05 PDT
Hi Shabtay,

I'm still working on an example - pressure of work, plus a wrong turn in 
trying to make a "simple" example have held me up a little, but I'm 
still trying to get the example together before tomorrows meeting for 
anyone who has the time to look at it.

Regards
Bernard.



Shabtay Matalon wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
> Have you sent a simplified version of your examples using SCE-MI 1.1 and
> simulating using DPI? I'd like at least to send it to few people to look
> at if it arrives while I am on vacation for 3 weeks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shabtay 
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of John
>> Stickley
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: bdeadman@sdvinc.com
>> Cc: 'itc@eda.org'
>> Subject: more on Bernard's SCE-MI 2.0 issue
>>
>> Bernard,
>>
>> I discussed your issue further with some of my Mentor
>> colleagues we came to the conclusion the standard itself
>> probably needs no changes to solve your problem.
>>
>> It's more a question of efficiency of implementation of
>> the standard.
>>
>> In thinking about it further, we realized that if you can
>> model this successfully in a DPI compliant S/W simulator
>> (which you said you could do by putting the imported call
>> in a combo block), there's no reason, you cannot do the same
>> in an emulated environment.
>>
>> Furthermore, there's no reason the emulated environment
>> needs to implement that call inefficiently as you had
>> expressed a concern about (i.e. multiple calls over a
>> communication link as combo logic "settles out").
>>
>> In fact, I would say that in any cycle based simulator
>> - which an emulator typically is, any such combo blocks could
>> be modeled pretty efficiently so as minimize the number
>> of calls to the imported function that are needed to
>> still get the right answer.
>>
>> This is really more of a question of efficiency of
>> implementation and the standard itself makes no restrictions
>> on how this could be optimized. And as Per first mentioned,
>> implementations do have the freedom to use an uncontrolled
>> clock underneath if necessary to implement DPI calls.
>> So, in effect, implementations can automatically (implicitly)
>> do what you're doing in the SCE-MI 1.1 implementation by stopping
>> the clock (explicitly).
>>
>> Now, this said, you do need be careful how you write
>> the imported function in question. You have to write
>> it in such a way that if it was called multiple times
>> in a given clock cycle by the same combo block, it
>> would not lead to erroneous behavior. In other words,
>> if each call advances some state on the C side, that could
>> lead to inconsistent behavior when going from one implementation
>> to the next.
>>
>> But obviously you have to worry about this whether emulating
>> or simulating - irrespective of whether you're using a
>> SCE-MI 2 implementation or just a plain SystemVerilog DPI
>> implementation in a S/W simulator.
>>
>> And I'm assuming you've already designed the function
>> to be somewhat pure in the sense that it is resilient
>> to side effects of multiple calls.
>>
>> -- johnS
>> <eom>
>>
>> This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged
>> and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient.  Any review, reliance or distribution by others or
>> forwarding without express permission        /\
>> is strictly prohibited. If you are     /\   |  \
>> not the intended recipient please     |  \ /   |
>> contact the sender and delete        /    \     \
>> all copies.                      /\_/  K2  \_    \_
>> ______________________________/\/            \     \
>> John Stickley                   \             \     \
>> Mgr., Acceleration Methodologies \             \________________
>> Mentor Graphics - MED             \_
>> 17 E. Cedar Place                   \   john_stickley@mentor.com
>> Ramsey, NJ  07446                    \     Phone: (201) 818-2585
>> ________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Jun 27 08:37:42 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 27 2007 - 08:37:50 PDT