[sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13 (mailboxes)

I opened erratum 384 for this issue. It is assigned to the sv-ec.

Neil



Arturo Salz wrote:
> Francoise,
>  
> Actually, a class object (i.e. a handle) is indeed a singular type,
> and the LRM
> is explicit about that.
>  
> If I recall correctly, the definition of singular was created precisely
> to include
> class objects for operations such as $cast, set-membership, event
> operators,
> and default arguments.
>  
>     Arturo
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Francoise Martinolle <mailto:fm@cadence.com>
> *To:* 'Arturo Salz' <mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM> ; 'Francoise
> Martinolle' <mailto:fm@gda.Cadence.COM> ; sv-bc@eda.org
> <mailto:sv-bc@eda.org>
> *Cc:* sv-ec@eda.org <mailto:sv-ec@eda.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2005 1:10 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13
> (mailboxes)
> 
> I meant to say that a class data type is not a singular type. Hence the
> definition of
> singular type is incomplete because it only lists unpacked struct,
> unions and arrays.
>  
> Thanks for the clarification for type equivalence for mailbox messages.
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* owner-sv-ec@eda.org <mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org>
>     [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Arturo Salz
>     *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2005 3:44 PM
>     *To:* Francoise Martinolle; sv-bc@eda.org <mailto:sv-bc@eda.org>
>     *Cc:* sv-ec@eda.org <mailto:sv-ec@eda.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13
>     (mailboxes)
> 
>     The mailbox section was reviewed before "matching types" were defined.
>     Hence, the intent was "type equivalence", which is also consistent with
>     pass-by-reference semantics.
>      
>     By the way, now that matching and equivalent types mean different
>     things,
>     the use of "matched" and "equivalent" in Section 10.4.2 could
>     benefit from
>     some wordsmithing:
>      
>     "Arguments passed by reference must be matched by equivalent data
>     types."
>      
>     I don't understand the comment about "it should also say classes".
>      
>         Arturo
>      
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Francoise Martinolle <mailto:fm@cadence.com>
>     *To:* sv-bc@eda.org <mailto:sv-bc@eda.org>
>     *Cc:* sv-ec@eda.org <mailto:sv-ec@eda.org>
>     *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2005 11:05 AM
>     *Subject:* [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13
>     (mailboxes)
> 
>     It is not clear in chapter 13 which describes mailboxes, to which
>     category of type compatibility
>     do the mailbox functions get(), try_get() and try_peek() refer to.
>      
>     The description states that a runtime error msg occurs if there is a
>     "type mismatch" between the
>     message variable and the message in the mailbox.
>      
>     I note that the variable is passed by reference and its data type is
>     described as "singular".
>     A singular data type is any data type except an unpacked structure,
>     union or array (by the
>     way it should also say classes).
>      
>     Does the message variable need to have a matching type (5.9.1) with
>     the type of the message in the mailbox?
>     or does it need to have an equivalent type (5.9.2)?
>     It matters for packed structs, packed unions and packed arrays where
>     the rules are different.
>      
>     Francoise
>            '
>      
>      
>      
>      

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-720-4852
Staff Engineer                                    Fax: 408-720-4850
Frontend Technologies - ASICs & Processors (FTAP)
Sun Microsystems
email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------