RE: Verbosity Control

owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org wrote on 08/12/2010 05:04:06:

<snip>
> About SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY = 9999, I'm not sure I understand. What
> can users do with this? Define SC_MY_VERBOSITY = 700? How will he
> define it? By changing the header file?
>

Hi Bishnupriya,
  the idea is that if you want to loop through all values of an enumerated
type, you know what the last enumerated value is, i.e.
SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY. Then if in future you add new values to the
enumerated type (e.g. in IEEE 1666-2016! ) your looping code still works.
It's just something I've seen in other tools that use enumerations, so
that extra levels can be inserted and you still know the last enumeration.

However now I think about it, it doesn't help in this case because the
enumeration values are not separated by 1, but by 100. So you couldn't
easily write a loop to go through all possible enumeration values - and
anyway, when would you want to?

So I'm not too worried, it was just an idea.

regards
Alan
 
> -Bishnupriya
> From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
> Subject: RE: Verbosity Control

> Bishupriya,
>
> See below:
>
> Also, what do you think of adding sc_gen_report as proposed by
> Philipp? I see no reason to do so right now.
>
> John A
>
> -----Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com> wrote: -----
> To: "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
> From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
> Date: 12/07/2010 05:41PM
> Cc: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
> Subject: RE: Verbosity Control

> John,
>
>
> 1) The enum SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY = 9999 was proposed by Alan for the
> case where we have only one report() signature with an optional
> verbosity argument at the end. We are not going with that signature.
> Philip had also not liked this enum. So I don't think we need this enum.

>
> [JA] SEE SEPARATE EMAIL TO ALAN
>
> 2) I agree on your point to not change the existing macros to supply
> verbosity argument - that can be misleading. However, I don't like
> that some SC_INFO messages are subject to verbosity check and some
> are not. This is not consistent. Its better - as per the original
> proposal - that the existing report() signature assigns a default
> verbosity value of 200 to the INFO messages and check these against
> max verbosity. Then all INFO messages have a verbosity property -
> either explicitly user assigned or an implicit default value, and
> all INFO messages are subject to verbosity check. This is nice and
> clean and fully backward compatible.
>
> [JA] I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying change the
> definitions of the current SC_REPORT_INFO macro to call the
> overloaded sc_report_handler::report method with a verbosity, but
> leave SC_REPORT_WARNING/ERROR/FATAL unchanged? I would be fine with
that.
>
> 3) About the new macro, I like adding SC_REPORT_INFO_VERB(msg_type,
> msg, verbosity).
>
> Users will either do
>
> sc_report_handler::report(SC_INFO, "myid", "mymsg", 500,
> __FILE__, __LINE__);
> sc_report_handler::report(SC_WARNING, "myid", "msg", __FILE__,
__LINE__);
>
> or
>
> SC_REPORT_INFO_VERB("myid", "mymsg", 500);
> SC_REPORT_WARNING("myid", "msg");
>
> [JA] Yes, this is how I understood it.
>
> We should have this discussion on the reflector also.
>
> Thanks,
> -Bishnupriya
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
Alan Fitch
Senior Consultant
Doulos - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project 
Services
Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, 
UK
Tel:  + 44 (0)1425 471223                       Email: 
alan.fitch@doulos.com 
Fax:  +44 (0)1425 471573                        http://www.doulos.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doulos Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company no. 3723454
Its registered office is 4 Brackley Close, Bournemouth International 
Airport,
 Christchurch, BH23 6SE, UK. 
This message (and associated files) may contain information that is 
confidential, 
proprietary, privileged, or subject to copyright. It is intended solely 
for the use
of the individual to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive 
it. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
all
copies. This message may contain personal views which are not the views of
Doulos, unless specifically stated.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.