Date: Thu Aug 04 2011 - 10:26:12 PDT
> strings can store most everything
Yes, a constant_expression string does provide a huge loophole! For example,
a Perl script or an SV design could be embedded in a single attr_spec.
-- Brad
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Maidment, Matthew R <
matthew.r.maidment@intel.com> wrote:
> ** **
>
> Here’s some idea of what attributes might look like
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> (*DPIOO, export, exclude=”f2”, language=”SystemC” foreign=”P::Packet”*)**
> **
>
> class packet; ****
>
> extern function int f1(); ****
>
> extern function void f2(); ****
>
> endclass ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> class packet; ****
>
> (*DPIOO, export, foreign=”GetByte” *)****
>
> function byte get_byte(int j); ****
>
> ... ****
>
> endfunction ****
>
> // pragma DPI-OO export function get_byte foreign=GetByte ****
>
> endclass****
>
> ** **
>
> The benefits of attributes include clearer semantics as to which syntax
> elements they apply as to where they apply and that they can be interrogated
> by VPI.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’d like to see attributes given more consideration given that strings can
> store most everything and there is no ambiguity regarding placement.****
>
> ** **
>
> Matt****
>
> --
> Matt Maidment
> mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim
> Vellenga
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:55 AM
> *To:* brad_pierce@acm.org; Rich, Dave
>
> *Cc:* SystemVerilog CC DWG (sv-cc@eda.org); sv-bc@eda.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-cc] Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 3087 Uses of comment pragmas
> instead of attributes****
>
> ** **
>
> Syntax 22-8 comes a lot closer to what’s in the proposal. Using Syntax
> 22-8, the complex values supported by the proposal could be represented as
> strings. So that would work out OK.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Brad
> Pierce
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 Aug 2011 3:22 PM
> *To:* Rich, Dave
> *Cc:* SystemVerilog CC DWG (sv-cc@eda.org); sv-bc@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-cc] Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 3087 Uses of comment pragmas instead
> of attributes****
>
> ** **
>
> Can the impoverished attribute syntax of Syntax 5-3 really carry the
> weight? Why not use/extend the `pragma directive of Syntax 22-8?****
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> Why does this proposal continue to promote the use comment pragmas instead
> of attributes? I thought the use of attributes is to be encouraged because
> you can’t construct macros to deal with comments. Or are we giving up on
> attributes?****
>
> ****
>
> Dave Rich
> Verification Technologist
> Mentor Graphics Corporation****
>
> *[image: Description: Description: Twitter-32]*<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>
> *[image: Description: Description: Technorati-32]*<http://go.mentor.com/drich>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
> --
> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. ****
>
>
> --
> 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.
