Subject: [sv-cc] Scheduling Semantics - Chapter 14
From: Michael Rohleder (michael.rohleder@motorola.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:14:26 PDT
Hi all,
here is my official request about further improving the C-API side of the Scheduling Semantics (SV 3.1 draft, chapter 14). I am
unsure what is the best way/process to do this, since this requires _not_ a prototype implementation (fortunately). Nevertheless, it
is a very important enhancement in my eyes.
Otherwise I would not request it...
What it this all about? Chapter 14 defines the scheduling semantics for SV 3.1, which includes a (rather sparse list) of PLI
callbacks and to which region those callbacks needs to be assigned. What I would like to see is:
a) W.r.t. DPI: clearly identify when a function will be invoked in correlation to those semantics (we need to describe _import_ and
_export_ functions, and some invocation series ...).
b) W.r.t. Coverage and Assertion extensions: assignment of these functions to the appropriate regions
c) Any special rules that might apply for the above additions (e.g. calling DPI export function by a coverage extension ... ?!?)
IMHO items a) to c) are an absolute must and it would now be the right time, when we don't want to end up in a similar mess than we
already have in PLI/VPI
I would further _love_ to see some extension of the table 14-3 to show _all_ PLI/VPI functions (or function groups/classes). When
there is some ambiguity due to existing implementations, fine, let's state this (or state some _recommended_ region, with permission
to derivate -- that's my preference).
This might be too much work for us within the given timeframe, but _any_ extension here, I as an user, would compliment as highly
useful ... Why should a user spent days evaluation the correct order of invocations when we are able to specify it once? Even in
cases were there are derivations, this information alone (the awareness about the derivation) is more than useful for anybody
having to write some PLI/VPI code.
I have spent once more than a week debugging a single case were a CALL pli function has been invoked _before_ a MISC(end_of_compile)
function. And this is an area of problems (order of PLI 1.0 callback invocations) we don't even touch here ...
Hope this is enough information to have a first taste which route we would/could go here ...
Best regards,
-Michael
--NOTE: The content of this message may contain personal views which are not neccessarily the views of Motorola, unless specifically stated.
___________________________________________________ | | _ | Michael Rohleder Tel: +49-89-92103-259 | _ / )| Software Technologist Fax: +49-89-92103-680 |( \ / / | Motorola, Semiconductor Products, System Design | \ \ _( (_ | _ Schatzbogen 7, D-81829 Munich, Germany _ | _) )_ (((\ \>|_/ > < \_|</ /))) (\\\\ \_/ / mailto:Michael.Rohleder@motorola.com \ \_/ ////) \ /_______________________________________________\ / \ _/ \_ / / / \ \
The information contained in this email has been classified as: Motorola General Business Information (x) Motorola Internal Use Only ( ) Motorola Confidential Proprietary ( )
*** This note may contain Motorola Confidential Proprietary or Motorola Internal Use Only Information and is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank you! ***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:15:48 PDT