Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Re: The Action item for you from the SV-BC
From: Kevin Cameron x3251 (Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 17:07:18 PST
> From gvreugde@synopsys.com Mon Jan 20 16:47:03 2003
>
>
> In what sense do you mean "care"? I certainly care that no constraints
> are put on a simulator's implementation in terms of layout decisions;
> I do *not* want to require that simulators use C compatible layout. All
> of the SV-CC issues should be at the interface level, not at the
> final implementation level. I'm not sure if there are any current
> issues which could expose the difference anyways (ie. if a copy-in/copy-out
> in order to do data normalization would ever break).
>
> Gord.
"Care" as in: do I need to specify the behavior, or can I leave it for later.
It appears that we already agreed on using C compatible layout, however bit-fields
are not implemented in SV, so if there is no plan to add them it would be good
to have an alternative mapping.
Bit fields are often used in C that has to interface to hardware, so it seems likely
to me that it'll be an issue for someone (apart from myself).
Kev.
> Kevin Cameron x3251 wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone care about mapping bit-vectors to C bit fields?
> >
> > E.g.:
> >
> > SV:
> > struct { bit [4:0] x;
> > char y;} sv_strct;
> >
> > ==
> >
> > C:
> > struct { int x:5;
> > char y;} c_strct;
> >
> > Kev.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gord Vreugdenhil gvreugde@synopsys.com
> Staff Engineer, VCS (Verification Tech. Group) (503) 547-6054
> Synopsys Inc., Beaverton OR
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 17:08:24 PST