RE: sc_event naming: Cadence position on proposed extension

Bishnupriya,

You write: [I think we are ok here. For kernel events, we decided that it is implementation defined whether they are added to hierarchy or not, so the above wording is not violated. In the sc_event section, we do need to add though that even if hierarchically named, kernel events cannot take up user-reachable parts of the namespace => hierarchical naming according to the SNPS extension is ok because that will not clash with any user-defined object or event name, but it is not ok to put a kernel event in top-level or under a user-defined module or under a user-defined process.]

I'm not sure whether we are on the same page here. Since the parent of a hierarchically named event can only be a module instance or a process instance, as things stand a hierarchically-named kernel event is sure to be in a user-reachable part of the namespace! That's one reason an implementation may chose an implementation-defined name instead. Are you talking about a possible future extension where an event may have a parent that is not a module or process instance?

John A

-----Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com> wrote: -----
To: "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
Date: 12/02/2010 09:07AM
Cc: P1666 Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Subject: RE: sc_event naming: Cadence position on proposed extension

    
John,
 
Comments below.
    
      From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:00 AM
To: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya
Cc: P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: sc_event naming: Cadence position on proposed extension

<SNIP>
       
   

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