Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Re: VHDL 200x request
From: John Shields (jshields@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 11:41:10 PDT
All very good comments. My original point was about careful tradeful between
pre-defined functions and general mechanism to create what you need in C.
It was really not about VHPI vs. Direct C.
Regarding VHPI, I don't want to oversell it. I agree that a direct "C"
mechanism has usefulness and should be easier. The Verilog experience is
a valuable data point, too. Given the type system differences between
the languages, direct C for VHDL will have its own complications, though.
I admit it is premature for me to make comparisions until a proposed
definition is available for review.
I'm interested seeing it.
Regards,
John Shields
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org]On Behalf
Of Tim Schneider
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:50 AM
To: vhdl-200x-tbv@eda.org; vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Re: VHDL 200x request
** At 10:18 AM 10/10/2003, Jayaram Bhasker wrote: **
>Using VHPI is a non-trivial task for a typical designer.
Agreed...
A direct "C" mechanism definitely has usefulness. I've seen folks on the
Verilog
side (designers) gravitate to this much more easily than writing such in
PLI/VPI For a "quick" model its really useful, access would be either
port or process/task based.
Keeping it modular and not allow passing of anything that is not allowed in
standard VHDL (i.e. no pointers and such) helps keep it somewhat 'safe'.
and would avoid language bloat.
-tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 11:43:58 PDT