Subject: RE: [sv-cc] open issue: exported function = virtual function?
From: Joao Geada (Joao.Geada@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 12:46:19 PST
:-)
Doug,
we added exactly the same restriction already to the LRM (version 0.8) ...
Funny how we all think alike.
At minimum, that restriction was required purely for technical reasons: if
two different SV functions in same scope mapped to the same cname, how would
the compiler know which one to call when a call to that cname was made in
that scope ?
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
==============================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org]On Behalf Of
Warmke, Doug
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:08 PM
To: 'Andrzej Litwiniuk'; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] open issue: exported function = virtual function?
...
> Susprisingly (for me, Joao wasn't surprised at all!) the restriction
> "one signature per cname" does =not= mean "one source code per cname".
> Actually, it doesn't matter what was the source code, as long
> as the signature
> matches. SV implementation will have to identify the right
> code anyway.
DOUG: This is fine. However, there should be the restriction that
only all export function cname's used in a given declarative scope
should be unique. This "virtual function" mechanism would only
work when selecting between function variants in different
instantiated declarative scopes.
...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 12:49:21 PST