Subject: Re: DirectC: external modules vs. external/exported tasks
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 18:36:41 PST
> Andrzej Litwiniuk wrote:
>
> >It's easy to observe that if C may call SV task and SV may call C task
> >(i.e. a function that may block/wait/pass time), then the whole
> >synchronization can be expressed in SV.
> >Simple SV tasks may be defined in with wait, delay, etc.
> >Such tasks can be then used on C side as synchronization primitives.
> >So, C function would delay or wait by calling primitive SV task which
> >contains the needed delay or wait.
>
> This is an intriguing idea. In fact, this is a nice solution for
> handling raw C environments
>
> And, with this "C task" solution, we probably eliminate the need for
> c-modules
> altogether.
>
> -- johnS
John, do you propose formally to eliminate external modules?
Alternatively one may propose to give up "C task" solution since external
modules may do the trick (unless somebody proves otherwise).
Well, I'm kind of playing the role of devil's advocate here;
personally I don't have clear picture yet whether both mechanisms are needed
or one of them is sufficient and superior.
Just wanted to point out that we shouldn't go into detailed considerations
of "C task" solution before addressing the basic question of the need
-or lack of- for two orthogonal mechanisms.
Andrzej
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 18:37:12 PST