Subject: Re: [sv-cc] open issue: exported function = virtual function?
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 13:49:11 PST
> Glad to see we converged so quickly on this one.
> [...]
> Doug
Wait a minute! We converged on the restriction only, that it is a must.
The issue whether to allow more than one function SV source code definition
per cname seems to be open. Poll?
Andrzej
> > :-)
> >
> > 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 - 13:53:09 PST