RE: [sv-cc] vpi_create

Bassam,

thanks for the explanation. I don't recall this very clearly but I can
believe you.

Francoise
        '

At 01:26 PM 5/27/2004 -0700, Bassam Tabbara wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>* Francoise: I recall, in general, we decided to keep any one routine as
>simple as possible consistent with the thinking behind VPI. In this
>particular case also 2 "serious" issues came to the fore: 1) vpi_create if
>simple can be extended/reused with other things besides vpiCollection, 2)
>Adding the additional arguments created some "inconsistency" and issues
>(e.g. error reporting/handling) with other similar functions of
>vpi_iterate() and then vpi_scan() of iterator. So the idea remained on the
>drawing board I think, and vpi_create() is the way it is, the extra
>complication did not seem worthwhile, it adds no new concept, so did not
>make it past the sanity check.
>
>* Swapnajit: This is not a "mistake" to my recollection vpi_create() has
>always been this way it is now in the LRM. And there is no "missing
>functionality" either (as I explain above). Francoise is I believe referring
>to the discussion/thinking we had in the committee about this issue not an
>error in LRM for sure (may be a future issue that needs study).
>
>Thx.
>-Bassam.
>
>--
>Dr. Bassam Tabbara
>Architect, R&D
>Novas Software, Inc.
>
>http://www.novas.com
>(408) 467-7893
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of Swapnajit Mittra
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:13 AM
> > To: sv-cc@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-cc] vpi_create
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joao,
> >
> > Please take a look into this. If this is a mistake, we need
> > to add this to our list of errata.
> >
> > --
> > Swapnajit Mittra
> >
> >
> > -- Francoise Martinolle <fm@cadence.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just downloaded the LRM pointed by the accellera web site:
> > http://www.eda.org/sv/SystemVerilog_3.1a.pdf
> >
> > and vpi_create has only 3 arguments and not 4.
> > Bassam, Joao, do you remember if we dropped this from the final spec?
> >
> > Francoise
> > '
> >
> > At 11:50 AM 5/26/2004 -0700, David W. Smith wrote:
> > >Have you looked at the 3.1a approved standard as well? Not sure which
> > >draft you looked at but it has been superceeded by the
> > >Accellera approved standard at this point.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >David
> > >
> > >David W. Smith
> > >Synopsys Scientist
> > >
> > >Synopsys, Inc.
> > >Synopsys Technology Park
> > >2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
> > >Hillsboro, OR 97124
> > >
> > >Voice: 503.547.6467
> > >Main: 503.547.6000
> > >FAX: 503.547.6906
> > >Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
> > >http://www.synopsys.com
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> > >Francoise Martinolle
> > >Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:52 PM
> > >To: sv-cc@eda.org
> > >Subject: [sv-cc] vpi_create
> > >
> > >I looked at the 3.1A draft and I noticed that vpi_create
> > only takes 3
> > >arguments. Did we drop the capability of specifying an iteration
> > >relationship and a reference handle to add all the iteration
> > elements
> > >to the collection in one vpi_create call?
> > >
> > >Francoise
> > > '
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month -
> > visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> >
Received on Wed Jun 2 09:02:19 2004