ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces

Subject: ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 23:11:58 PST

• Next message: Michael Rohleder: "Re: issue 1.4: No clear relationship to other APIs"
• Previous message: Warmke, Doug: "RE: ISSUE: cmodules vs. external "C" tasks"
• Next in thread: Swapnajit Mittra: "Re: ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces"
• Reply: Swapnajit Mittra: "Re: ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Team,

I'd like to formalize the issue of direct vs. abstract
parameters. Several people have expressed that they
don't like having an either/or approach to parameters.

My feeling is that we can have direct access for simple
types that are easy to understand and document. Best
performance will result, and usability will be fine.

For complex types, we need an abstract interface.
Also, if extern "C" tasks are supposed to drive
signals in the HDL design, an API call (probably one
already in PLI) will be needed anyways.

Let's get some discussion going on this issue.

Regards,
Doug

• Next message: Michael Rohleder: "Re: issue 1.4: No clear relationship to other APIs"
• Previous message: Warmke, Doug: "RE: ISSUE: cmodules vs. external "C" tasks"
• Next in thread: Swapnajit Mittra: "Re: ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces"
• Reply: Swapnajit Mittra: "Re: ISSUE: Direct vs. Abstract function parameter interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 23:12:31 PST