Subject: Re: issue 1.4: No clear relationship to other APIs
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 07:47:30 PST
Andrzej,
I am in total agreement here.
Francoise
'
At 08:24 PM 11/6/2002 -0500, Andrzej Litwiniuk wrote:
>Francoise wrote:
>
> > It is technically possible to call VPI and PLI from inside
> > a directC function.
> > It is also technically possible to prevent such VPI and PLI calls to have
> > any effect. The SV engine can remember that it is calling a directC
> function
> > can make the VPI nd PLI functions have no efffect other than may be
> giving a
> > warning message.
>
>Many of PLI functions refer to the current instance or current task/function.
>In order for them to work, compiler must set some variables before
>the call. Roughly speaking, all $pli calls are instrumented somehow.
>Similar instrumentation would be needed for DirectC calls if PLI/VPI
>could be safely called from inside of a C function, otherwise PLI function
>would simply crash.
>
>Yes, "SV engine can remember that it is calling a directC function"
>but this will involve some overhead, perhaps small, yet an overhead
>totally undue for simple C calls.
>
>
> > While looking back at the original goals of the directC interface, I read
> > that we want to design a simple, easy to use, fast performance, limited
> > functionality C interface which directly access simulation objects.
> >
> > Francoise
>
>
>Exactly!
>Either generality or simplicity with performance, I'm afraid.
>
>Adding more and more capabilities to DirectC calls seem to defy
>the original requirements and brings DirectC dangerously close to PLI.
>So, why not to stick with PLI for more sophistaicated needs and
>spare (leave intact!) the simple DirectC for simple needs?
>
>Thanks,
>Andrzej
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 07:47:54 PST