Subject: Re: [sv-cc] open issue: exported function = virtual function?
From: Stickley, John (john_stickley@mentorg.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:09:16 PST
Andrzej,
I'm inclined to only allow cnames to map to 1 exported
function, although I understand your desire to support
a virtual function of sorts.
If we allow this I have concerns that the SV compiler
generated code wrappers for the exported functions will
have to decide which SV code to call based on the
module scope setting. This may add extra overhead.
Since SV does not support a similar "virtual function"
feature - at least in module scopes, I don't think
we should introduce one.
-- johnS
Andrzej Litwiniuk wrote:
> > 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 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 \ / Phone: (201)818-2585 \ / ---------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:11:01 PST