RE: [sv-cc] Draft 8 sv_vpi_user.h issues

Hi Abi (Happy New Year)-
I have finally gotten around to reviewing this (a year later ;-), and I
agree with both of your finds.  I.e.:

1) vpiAllocScheme should be 656, not 4

  -and-

2) cbEndOfObject should be 608, not 607 ... but only IFF there is NO
problem with standard reason types overlapping with other (assertion) CB
types (all- please verify!), i.e.
   #define cbCreateObj 606
   #define cbReclaimObj 607
   #define cbEndOfObject 608
            -- vs --
   /* assertion callback types */
   #define cbAssertionStart 606
   #define cbAssertionSuccess 607
   #define cbAssertionFailure 608

Also, in comparing differences I came across the following with no
Mantis item reference (correction appears in D7):

< #define vpiTriggeredOp 74 /* the .triggered sequence operation */
---
> #define vpiEndedOp             74 /* the .ended sequence operation */

Anyone know what Mantis item this relates to ?
-CB

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Moorhouse, Abigail
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:05 PM
To: SV-CC
Subject: [sv-cc] Another Draft 8 typo

(My last one spammed rather further than I meant to).

This one is SV-CC only

In Draft 8 sv_vpi_user.h page 1202/1235 cbReclaimObj and cbEndOfObject
have both been defined to the same number - 607. I don't believe that
this represents the original intention.

Again, I'd appreciate a double-check from someone before Mantising it.

Abi

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



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