Subject: Re: [sv-cc] Feedback on revision 0.8
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 09:47:30 PST
Thanks John for your feedback.
The following items had been also caught by Doug and have been corrected
already:
> -------------------------------------
> Section 1.2.1 title
> Did you mean to take out "layer" ? Seems like it should be in there.
> Same in second paragraph.
> -------------------------------------
> Page 34 2nd to last paragraph
> "an non-context function" --> "a non-context function"
> "Therefore, a call of non-context --> "Therefore, a call of a non-context"
> -------------------------------------
> B.1 Include Files
> The DPI context helper functions have not been updated to match
> what is in section A.8.3.
> -------------------------------------
These needs to be taken care of:
> -------------------------------------
> Section 1.3
>
> I did not see anything about our decision to allow reserved
> names as cnames so long as they are escaped.
>
> One of the examples should show it also.
>
> -------------------------------------
> A.6.1 end of 1st paragraph
>
> "multidimensional" S/B "multi-dimentional
>
> -------------------------------------
> A.8.3 6th paragraph
>
> "Note that it is never possible to share user data storage across
> different contexts. For example, if a Verilog module 'm' declares a
> context imported function 'f', and 'm' is instantiated more than once
> in the SystemVerilog design, then 'f' will execute under different
> values of svScope. No such executing instances of 'f' can share
> user data with each other, at least not using the system-provided
> user data storage area accessible via svPutUserData(). "
>
> Doug, I know this was what you recently added.
>
> I'm not sure we need to say this. If a user really wanted to do this
> they could call svPutUserData() passing the same user data pointer
> across different contexts. True it cannot be used with the same
> key/scope. but the user data itself can be re-used. I don't really think
> this paragraph is necessary. It's probably just going to add confusion
> for no good reason. Or perhaps it needs to be re-stated with something
> to the effect of what I've said here.
>
> -------------------------------------
> A.8.3 comments for svGetUserData()
>
> The comments say "... , 0 upon success"
>
> Don't we mean to say it returns a non-NULL valid
> user data pointer upon success ?
>
> -------------------------------------
> A.8.3 comments for svGetCallerInfo()
>
> Please don't use "TRUE" and "FALSE" to describe what is
> returned for an 'int' type. That assumes that these are defined
> somewhere. Just use "non-zero" for success, 0 for failure or
> "0" for success, "-1" for failure to be consistent with
> what you said for svPutUserData().
> -------------------------------------
>
> -- johnS
Regards,
Andrzej
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 09:48:32 PST