RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi all,

I also for fixing it now, but only if the void type is been introduced.
It is very important to allow the intermixing of typed and untyped
parameters. It is not a big deal to fix the existing definitions by
adding the void qualifiers, but it is problematic and unwanted to change
the parameter order or to make all declarations untyped.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:09 PM
To: piper@cadence.com
Cc: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com; john.havlicek@freescale.com;
Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com; Korchemny, Dmitry; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com;
sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Lisa:

Between alternatives 1 and 2, I strongly favor fixing 
this now.

I like the direction of the proposal you have outlined.

I think we will have to put some more thought into 
how "const" works as a type and whether we allow "const"
with other types.

We should also think about the fact that pass-by-value 
is the default for tasks and functions, while pass-by-reference
is the mechanism for typed arguments to sequences and 
properties and pass-by-substitution is the mechanism 
for untyped (and presumably, void, sequence, and property)
arguments.

Even if we do not add pass-by-value as a part of this
solution, I think we should have a clear idea of how 
to add it later.

How does the argument passing work in PSL?

Best regards,

John H.


> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:40:40 -0400
> X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated
> Thread-Index: AcaaDNZwVdRAZQUnSKCvR9WVy8Q16wAA6K/gAAEJTfA=
> From: "Lisa Piper" <piper@cadence.com>
> Cc: <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>, <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>,
>         <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>, <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> X-Received: By mx-sanjose.cadence.com as k5RIef8N010126 at Tue Jun 27
11:40:42 2006
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2006 18:41:57.0873 (UTC)
FILETIME=[5E9B3E10:01C69A19]
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think the earlier we make these types of changes, the less impact it
> will have on users. This implies that IF we do it, we need to do it
now.
> I am for fixing it now!
> 
> Personally I think the four big "holes" that are needed to fix this:
> 
> 	void      for untyped parameters when used in this context
> 	property  for properties
> 	sequence  for sequences
> 	const     for constant integers for repetition and delays
> 
> Using this terminology does not create any new keywords so there is
> minimal change. I would make the default type "void" to help with
> backwards compatibility issues (this is different as Manisha pointed
out
> than the default type of logic for functions/tasks).
> 
> I'm not sure whether people care, but PSL does not allow untyped
> parameters, and their syntax for arguments is like tf_port_list.  PSL
> uses the keywords property, sequence, and const for arguments.
> 
> So the questions are:
> 
> 1) should we do this now - that is make the port list consistent with
> tf_port_list format AND add new types to the list of allowed type
names.
> 	- add all 4 types?
> 	- are the type names ok?
> 	- is the default of "void" ok?
> 
> 2) strip it out and live with it forever
> 
> 3) other?
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
>