Subject: [sv-cc] RE: extern
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 07:44:52 PST
Francoise,
Thanks for forwarding this to us.
Even though the feature was postponed to 3.2,
the semantic intention of this syntax is clear.
I think we need to avoid treading on this turf
so that Peter's proposal can survive in 3.2.
Regards,
Doug
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:27 AM
> To: Warmke, Doug; 'Swapnajit Mittra'; sv-cc@eda.org
> Subject: FYI: extern
>
>
> Doug,
>
> At the bc meeting yesterday, we discussed the proposals for extern
> variables in $root
> and extern functions in $root required by MTI to support
> separate compilation.
>
> Both proposals were postponed to 3.2
>
>
> See extract from bc meeting minutes:
> SV-BC77-1: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0640.html
> Matt moves that we postpone to 3.2. Dave seconds. No
> opposed. No
> abstain. Passes.
> Ref BNF is needed. Default direction for interfaces
> ref/inout needs
> wording.
>
>
> SV-BC99: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0639.html
> Dave moves that we postpone to 3.2. Gord seconds. No
> opposed. No
> abstain. Passes.
>
>
> Also here is the current extern declaration for task and
> functions used in
> interfaces
> with an amendment from Peter which was passed yesterday.
>
> SV-BC83: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0539.html
> An amendment was sent by Peter, reflector 0654. Dave
> moves that we
> accept this proposal. Karen seconds. No opposed. No abstain.
> Proposal passes.
> Francoise
> '
> At 06:58 AM 3/18/2003 -0800, Warmke, Doug wrote:
> >Swapnajit,
> >
> >It seems you might have forgotten the mail I sent last
> >Friday in reaction to SV-BC's use of the "extern" keyword.
> Let's make
> >sure to put that on the agenda.
> >
> >Also, if I can request that all DPI issues get handled first, that
> >would be great since I have a conflicting meeting at 9am PST.
> >
> >In my opinion we urgently need to change our extern syntax
> so as not to
> >collide with SV-BC's intended semantic for that syntax. i.e. they
> >intend C-style prototypes, we intend SV foreign proxy function
> >declaration. Recall, this semantic mismatch was the source of the
> >"gnarly thread". We should not exacerbate it, since the concept of
> >"foreign proxy function" is already
> >difficult enough to grasp. I think "import" was the next-best
> >syntax choice to "extern", we can re-poll if needed.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Doug
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Swapnajit Mittra [mailto:mittra@juno.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:33 PM
> > > To: sv-cc@server.eda.org
> > > Subject: [sv-cc] Meeting reminder - 03/18/03
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I. Agenda:
> > >
> > > o Procedural work [Swapnajit, 5 minutes]
> > > o LRM/BNF: placement of the coverage VPI system t/f.
> > > [Joao/all, 10 mins]
> > > o LRM: Update schedule [Joao/Ghassan/Swapnajit/all, 10 mins]
> > > - Internal releases.
> > > - Phil -> Stuart transition deadline.
> > > o extern/export [Swapnajit/Joao, 5 min]
> > > - Feedback from SV-EC extern/export proposal.
> > > - Ext function and task proposal from SV-BC.
> > > o svGet/PutUserData [John Stickley, 20 mins]
> > >
> > > [Swapnajit's reminder to the team: Please note that when we
> > > can always take up a technical topic for discussion, we have
> > > completed our 'technology freeze' last week as per the
> > > roadmap directed by Vassilios. So, if we fail to achieve a
> > > quick general consensus on a topic, we will have to defer
> > > it until SV3.2].
> > >
> > > o Any LRM related issue you want to bring up in the
> > > next meeting.
> > >
> > > II. Telecon info:
> > > o Same as always.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Swapnajit Mittra
> > > Project VeriPage ::: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> > > Only $9.95 per month!
> > > Visit www.juno.com
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 07:45:56 PST