I asked a few people their opinion on whether or not to change the DPI version to P1800-2009. Currently it is said: I.10.1.3 Implementation-dependent representation The svDpiVersion() function returns a string indicating which DPI standard is supported by the simulator and in particular which canonical value representation is being provided. For example, a tool that is based on IEEE Std 1800-2005, i.e., the VPI-based canonical value, shall return the string "1800-2005". Simulators implementing to the prior Accellera SV3.1a standards, and thus using the svLogicVec32 value representation, shall return the string "SV3.1a". /* Returns either version string "1800-2005" or "SV3.1a" */ const char* svDpiVersion(); IPersonally I think we should either leave this unchanged or say it return sv3.1a or a string 1800-xxxx where the xxxx number should be any of the standard versions. I append below the email exchange with Ralph and Doug: Doug warmke: I'm OK with either solution. There are a couple advantages to moving to "p1800-2009": 1. In case any errata or late changes do introduce changes, "p1800-2009" will already be in place to help catch them. 2. It is not very "neat and tidy" to have a "p1800-2005" string come out of a 2009-compliant simulator. But this isn't a very big deal either way. Whatever the decision is should be documented in the LRM. Thanks for asking, Doug > -----Original Message----- > From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com <mailto:fm@cadence.com> ] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:02 AM > To: RDuncan@CloudShield.com; Amit Kohli; Warmke, Doug > Cc: Charlie Dawson > Subject: DPI version string > > Ralph, Doug, Amit, > Since you are the DPI experts, we would like to know you opinion on > this matter. > If the current DPI version has incompatibilities with the p1800-2005 > or is substabtially different from p1800-2005, I guess it would be > worth adding a new version string of p1800-2009 otherwise I would > advise to leave its specification untouched. > > Francoise > ' > Here is an email exchange between Ralph and I. > > > The original intent, of course, was to signal whether an > implementation supported the canonical interface or not. For that > purpose, user code only needs to recognize whether "sv31a" is returned or not. > > There appear to be 3 basic choices -- specify that an implementation > of > svDpiVersion() returns: > > a. "sv31a" for non-canonical or anything else to indicate the > canonical conventions are supported. > b. "sv31a" or whatever is the most recent version of the Spec. > (e.g., "P1800-2008"). > c. "sv31a" or various strings corresponding to Spec. versions that > exist (allow "P1800-2005," "P1800-2008"). > > Choices 'b' and 'c' apparently lead to perpetual revisions. These may > only make sense if the function's return value is used to provide more > information than just the original pre-canonical/canonical distinction. > > Ralph Duncan > CloudShield Technologies > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org]*On <mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org]*On> Behalf Of *Francoise > Martinolle > *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2008 9:44 AM > *To:* SV-CC > *Cc:* Maidment, Matthew R > *Subject:* [sv-cc] mantis item 2099 > > Charles, > mantis item 2099 has a list of review comments, one of which ia > review item for the DPI section: > > I.9.1.3: should this be changed to "P1800-2008"? > > There is a function in DPI which returns the version number.: > P1800-2005 or sv31a > > ------------------------------------- > > > The svDpiVersion() function returns a string indicating which DPI > standard is supported by the simulator > > and in particular which canonical value representation is being > provided. For example, a tool that is based on > > IEEE Std 1800-2005, i.e., the VPI-based canonical value, shall > return the string "1800-2005". Simulators > > implementing to the prior Accellera SV3.1a standards, and thus > using > the svLogicVec32 value representation, > > shall return the string "SV3.1a". > > /* Returns either version string "1800-2005" or "SV3.1a" */ > > const char* svDpiVersion(); > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > Do we need to change the version returned from P1800-2005 to > P1800-2009, or add a new version P1800-2009? > > > > If the answer is " no change required, please add a bug note for > mantis 2099, otherwise please file a new mantis item > > and mark it as a child of 2099 to reserve the version #. > > > > Francoise > > > Dou -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Aug 25 12:39:45 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 25 2008 - 12:40:08 PDT