Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: Version 2 of DPI LRM
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 07:02:49 PST
At 10:07 PM 3/13/2003 -0800, Warmke, Doug wrote:
>My "informal poll" answers on naming below...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Rohleder [mailto:michael.rohleder@motorola.com]
> > > Thus I opt for:
> > >
> > > svOpenArrayHandle
> > > svScopeHandle (Scope or Context or Instance?)
> >
> > Fine with me.
>DOUG: Fine with me, too.
Francoise: good for me.
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrzej
> > >
> > > PS. Since we are already polling (yet informally), may we
> > revive the poll
> > > on include files names?
> > >
> > > 1) svc.h + svc_src.h
> > > 2) dpi.h + dpi_src.h
> > > 3) svdpi.h + svdpi_src.h
> > > 4) sv_dpi.h + sv_dpi_src.h
> >
> > > 5) sv_dpi_c.h + sv_dpi_c_src.h
> > >
> > > I opt for 5) because: SV + DPI + C; layers for other languages are
> > > conceivable for DPI, similarly like other interfaces are
> > conceivable for SV
> > > (and they even do exist, e.g. VPI).
> >
> > I like 4) more - basically I doubt that there will be ever
> > other header files. And when, then they will very likely
> > provide some mapping
> > from the C function call semantics to the other foreign
> > language. But all others are O.K. as well. Pick one.
>
>DOUG: I like 2), 2nd choice would be 3).
>I think 5) is just too long with too many underscores.
>Agree with Michael's point about the unlikelihood of
>other header files in the future, too.
Francoise: I like 3)
>Thanks and Regards,
>Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 07:04:00 PST