Subject: Re: Assertions API v0.3
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 08:31:34 PST
Comments on the last rev.
0. there is a little bit of confusion because are using the word property
in 2 different senses.
In VPI terminology a property in VPI is like an attribute of an object
type. Here the assertion proposal talks about properties as syntactical
objects of the SV
language. I was wondering if we would not want to use a different
terminolgy for the assertion? You use the term assert_hanlde to denote a
property type object handle
in some parts of the document
1.the numeric ids for the VPI objects types, object properties, callbacks
and control constants can all start at 700 because they are used by
different VPI functions.
2. VPI distinguish integer/enumeration properties from string properties.
I think we should have only an integer property vpiDirective which can
return the kind of
directive on the property.
#define vpiDirective 700
which can return vpiAssert, vpiAssume, ....
ex: vpi_get(vpiDirective, propObjHdl)
The property vpiDirective applied to a handle of type vpiProperty
(denoting a property)
will return one the the following defined constants:
vpiAssert, vpiAssume...
where #define vpiAssert 1
#define vpiAssume 2 etc...
The integer property list should contain
#define vpiLineNo // return the source line number of the assertion
The object property list should also contain the list of string properties:
#define vpiName which can return the property name (used with vpi_get_str
therefore
the number associated with this string property can be again
#define vpiFileName
Note that the vpiLineNo, vpiName and vpiFileName properties are already
available in VPI
for other types of objects and therefore we can use the standard VPI
properties we don't ned to redefine them.
3. the object diagram for property access should list the VPI properties
which can be
applied to a property typed object:
vpiDirective, vpiName etc...
It should also list the other functions which you can applied to an object
hanlde of type
vpiProperty.
Ex: vpi_get_property_info, vpi_register_property_cb, vpi_control.
4. question: the clk_expression, failed_expression etc... are now vpiHandles.
I like this better than providing the string expression but I don't
remember the decision.
Is this change intentional?
At 11:45 PM 1/10/2003 -0500, Joao Geada wrote:
>Attached is the update to the assertions API (VPI extensions). This includes
>the numeric ids updated as per the feedback from Francoise/Charles (reserved
>number range from IEEE VPI working group), updates to the step api as per
>discussions with Bassam & updates as requested from the last review meetings
>
>Joao
>==============================================================================
>Joao Geada, PhD Principal Engineer Verif Tech Group
>Synopsys, Inc TEL: (508) 263-8083
>344 Simarano Drive, Suite 300, FAX: (508) 263-8069
>Marlboro, MA 01752, USA
>==============================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 08:32:08 PST