Re: Verbosity Control

B

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:11 PM, <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
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

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