Re: Verbosity Control

John, all,

my vote goes for (B) as well.

Minor comments (not changing my vote):

  Although I'm not too happy with ignoring the verbosity for all other
severities altogether. What about adding a report_info() function
instead, that takes a verbosity but no sc_severity?

  If we go for the overload of the report() function, I'd like to add
sc_core::sc_gen_report(), as proposed by Cadence:

  void sc_gen_report( sc_severity, const char*, const char*,
                      int verbosity,
                      const char* file = NULL, int line = NULL );

to reduce typing.

Greetings from Oldenburg,
  Philipp

On 07/12/10 03:11, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
> All,
>
> Okay, votes on verbosity please. The three options on the table are:
>
> A) Do nothing
> B) Add global max verbosity only
> C) Add module-instance-specific max verbosity
>
> For options B) and C) the details still need to be worked out. With B) we are pretty close, although C) may require rather more work (just my opinion)
>
> I vote B)
>
> John A
>
> -----Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com> wrote: -----
> To: "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
> From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
> Date: 12/06/2010 04:31PM
> Cc: Philipp A Hartmann <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>, P1666 Technical WG <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
> Subject: RE: Verbosity Control
>
>
> John,
>
> As I had stated with the proposal submission, we're ok if it is decided that module-specific verbosity is premature to standardize at this time and only global verbosity gets standardized. So we will not hold things up if that is the general consensus.
>
> I feel we had a good discussion in this forum on module-specific verbosity that will benefit the LWG.
>
> Thanks,
> -Bishnupriya
>
> From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:29 PM
> To: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya
> Cc: john.aynsley@doulos.com; Philipp A Hartmann; P1666 Technical WG
> Subject: RE: Verbosity Control
>
>
> Bishnupriya, All,
>
> I am mainly arguing from experience using the module-specific reporting features of OVM. I concede that there are use cases where module-specific customization is a good thing. But the price paid with the OVM solution (and the current proposal) is user frustratation because it seems that "you never quite know whether the set_whatever call is going to do what you want", and it seems not to work in some of the most important use cases (meaning where you have a large number of reports from transaction streams or sequences, which you cannot control on a module-specific basis), leaving the user the impression that the feature is only half-baked.
>
> In my opinion, this feeling of half-bakedness would be exacerbated if the module-specific reporting control in SystemC only applies to verbosity.
>
> So personally I feel strongly that we should implement global verbosity control more-or-less as originally proposed, and punt module-specific reporting in general back to the LWG.
>
> John A
>
>
>
>

-- 
Philipp A. Hartmann
Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany · http://www.offis.de/
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · Skype: phi.har
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.