Subject: Re: Poll on ISSUE 1.1
From: Stickley, John (john_stickley@mentorg.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 08:34:00 PST
My vote:
a) Y
b) A
I abstain on b) since I think dynamic binding is a basically a good
idea but I think it can be somewhat simplified as compared to what
Kevin has proposed. It all comes down to the issue of adding new
API calls or not.
I think it would be worthwhile to craft a dynamic binding C-calls-SV
capability but I also think most of the useful functionality can be
accomplished with a static interface which we should support at a
minimum
and which proposal a) does support. Yes there are compiler issues
but those issues exist in both directions not just C-to-SV. And, for
a given compiler environment, C++ mangling issues are solvable.
And for mixed compiler environments, exclusive use of C linkage
solves all the issues.
To Stuart's reaction,
I vote "no" on both (a) and (b) for issue 1.1.
My thinking is roughly along the lines of Andrzej's thinking
below. I agree that the capability that we are pursuing here (in 1.1)
is quite useful, but I think we already have too much to do
right now, and our first priority should be to make sure
that the things we do attempt to standardize are very high quality and
known
to be good solutions.
-Stuart
I say that if we want the C-to-SV function call direction at all, we
need
a context sensitivity solution. I don't know how you solve it otherwise
for this direction. So to say we don't have time to solve this right now
is to say we only need function calls in the SV-to-C direction right
now.
Which leads to Andrezj's comments:
Andrzej Litwiniuk wrote:
My vote is:
a) Abstain
b) No
Comment:
I can see the convenience and the power of that new functionality (C
calls SV),
but I simply don't know whether the overhead overweights the benefits of
the richer functionality, or other way round.
So here again we're bringing in to question the entire need of whether
we need function calls in the C-to-SV direction.
My belief is if we don't provide this feature we're only providing half
of what is
needed in an inter-language function call capability. We may as well
defer to a
VPI interface for all C/SV interactions.
But this is missing the most valuable feature of a function call
mechanism and that
is to provide an easy-to-use, API-less, transaction oriented
communication mechanism
between C and SV. That, to me is this most fundamental reason for having
this interface
at all.
-- johnS
Swapnajit Mittra wrote:
Team,
I would like to put the proposals on ISSUE 1.1 on poll
and get a closure on them.
There are two parts for the poll:
a) Joao/John's proposal
b) Kevin's extension.
The eligible members for sending comments ('Y' - Yes,
'N' - No or 'A' - Abstain) are:
Francoise Martinole
Stuart Swan
John Amouroux
John Stickley
Doug Warmke
Michael Rohleder
Kevin Cameron
Bassam Tabbara
Joao Geada
Andrzej Litwiniuk
Please send your reply to sv-cc@eda.org <mailto:sv-cc@eda.org> by
Monday (12/02)
5 PM PST (to give me enough time to compute the result and
announce it on 3rd).
Regards,
-- Swapnajit Mittra Project VeriPage ::: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog <http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog>--
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.
__
______ | \
______________________/ \__ / \
\ H Dome ___/ |
John Stickley E | a __ ___/ / \____
Principal Engineer l | l | \ /
Verification Solutions Group | f | \/ ____
Mentor Graphics Corp. - MED C \ -- / /
17 E. Cedar Place a \ __/ / /
Ramsey, NJ 07446 p | / ___/
| / /
mailto:John_Stickley@mentor.com <mailto:John_Stickley@mentor.com> \ /
Phone: (201)818-2585 \ /
---------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 08:38:00 PST