Re: [sv-cc] Errata? Handling DPI parameters of type 'reg'

I do agree with your errata request.
At 04:21 PM 7/27/2004 -0400, Duncan, Ralph wrote:

>Several early DPI users have wanted to pass 'reg' scalars or vectors across
>the DPI boundary.
>
>However, the LRM DPI sections only mention 'logic' scalars and packed
>arrays as
>legal 4-state entities for the DPI interface (E.6.4 table and E.6.7).
>
>I am told that the group did intend to include 'reg' items. In addition,
>Dave Rich
>of SV-BC states that he knows no semantic difference between 'logic' and
>'reg'
>as the language now stands.
>
>If you do not believe that the 'reg' data type should be essentially
>treated as
>being interchangeable with 'logic', please make this known.
>
>However, if there is a group consensus that we should accept reg
>parameters as
>equivalent to logic parameters, I propose to make this explicit: otherwise
>the reader
>must extrapolate our intent or consult type equivalence material separated
>from the
>DPI section by hundreds of pages.
>
>Three changes might suffice for this:
>
>1. E.6.4 table of SV/C type equivalences: replace "logic" with "logic/reg".
>
>2. E.6.4 table footnote.
> The footnote is "Encodings for bit and logic are given in file
> svdpi.h. Refer to Annex E.9.1.1."
> (Section E.9.1.1 only discusses scalar encodings).
> I propose adding the following sentence:
> "Reg parameters can use the same encodings as logic parameters."
>
>3. E.6.7: Sentence preceding Encoding table:
>
> Before: "Table E-2 defines the encoding used for a packed logic array
> represented as svLogicVec32."
> After: "Table E-2 defines the encoding used for a packed logic or reg
> array represented as svLogicVec32."
>
>Please let me know your opinions on handling the reg type, and on any LRM
>changes that
>you believe should or should not be made to support this.
>
>Thanks for considering this,
>Ralph
Received on Wed Aug 4 09:10:24 2004