RE: Verbosity Control

I know I’m late to the party but trying to catch up – on this proposal I also would vote B.


Eric Roesler

Virtual Platform CoE
Intel Corporation
ph 480.554.7541



From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:12 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: RE: Verbosity Control

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.