RE: [sv-cc] Proposal for DPI rand/randc handling

Ralph,
 
For some reason, I'm uncomfortable with using the phrase
"ultimately the user's responsibility" in a formal standard.
In addition, there is now a certain amount of wishy-washiness in
the degree to which the argument types match.  Could I suggest
rewriting the sentence as
 
"Although each compiler can coerce data to an expected form for its side
of the inter-language boundary, the user must ensure that the
imported/exported function types [delete "exactly"] match the types
of the corresponding tasks or functions in the foreign language, except
for ignored qualifiers."
 
Regards,
Jim

---------------------------------------------------------
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381
Engineering Director                   (FAX) 978-262-6636
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information."
---------------------------------------------------------- 

 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Ralph Duncan
	Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:05 PM
	To: sv-cc@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-cc] Proposal for DPI rand/randc handling
	
	

	There is a proposal for DPI handling of rand or randc qualifiers
with structs/unions; 
	This is Mantis item 1716, which: 

	. Documents our consensus to allow these qualifiers, while
ignoring their semantics 
	  and delivering structs/unions with the usual C-compatible
layout. 

	. Suggests changes for two sections (F.5 Semantic constraints
and F.6.4. Basic types). 

	1. General principle: 
	It treats our handling as a particular case of argument
'coercion,' a topic that was already 
	present in F.5.  We say that in such cases, the SV compiler can
coerce an actual 
	argument by stripping out any extra bits a simulator uses to
represent certain kinds 
	of qualifiers (see new paragraph in proposal). 

	2. Specific note for DPI users: 
	It adds a brief note in F.6.4, saying that formal and actual
arguments with rand/randc 
	qualifiers are legal but that the qualifiers are essentially
ignored and any relevant 
	argument coercion is done (cross-references F.5 changes for
coercion basics). 

	Thanks for any time you spend on this matter, 
	Ralph 


	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.