RE: sc_event naming: Cadence position on proposed extension

Bishnupriya,

In writing this up, I've uncovered a few more issues.

Precisely when does the breakpoint come between static events and dynamic events? I have chosen the start of the initialization phase. In other words, an event created during start_of_simulation would be a static event, but an event created by a process would be a dynamic event.

Does sc_find_event() return events with implementation-defined names, or only hierarchically named events? To me, it should only return hierarchically named events, but I don't have a compelling argument.

Same question for sc_name_exists(). Does it include or exclude implementation-defined names? If its hierarchical-names-only, should we rename it to sc_hierarchical_name_exists()?

What should sc_event::basename() return for an implementation-defined name? The whole name? Part of the name? Something unrelated to name()?

1666-2005 says: "There shall be a single global namespace for hierarchical names. Each sc_object shall have a unique nonempty hierarchical name. An implementation shall not add any names to this namespace other than the hierarchical names of sc_objects explicitly constructed by an application"

I propose to append   " and the hierarchical names of hierarchically named events."

Does this forbid hierarchically-named kernel events? How about the events within predefined channels? Other kernel events? We have agreed that kernel events should not clutter the name hierarchy, but are they forbidden from doing so?

We need to finalize the rules for implementation-defined names. I propose: "... shall be a legal name as described in [...] but shall contain one or more characters that is not in the recommended character set for application-defined hierarchical names, that is, one or more characters that is not an upper or lower case letter, a decimal digit, an underscore, or a period character."

John A

-----Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com> wrote: -----
To: "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
Date: 11/30/2010 04:04PM
Cc: "Martin.Janssen@synopsys.com" <Martin.Janssen@synopsys.com>, P1666 Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Subject: RE: sc_event naming: Cadence position on proposed extension

    
John,
 
Thinking more about the name "in_hierarchy", I'm now inlcined towards this name compared to "has_hierarchical_name" because I feel the term "hierarchical_name" may not be as clear to a user in conveying what exactly is meant - there is scope of confusing with "has_name". The user may think "has_hierarchical_name" is the same thing as "has_name". in_hierarchy" at least steers clear of the name and allows the user to think in a clearer context.
 
My 2 cents.
 
-Bishnupriya
   

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