[sv-bc] FW: [sv-ec] $typename follow-up

-----Non-member submission-----
On Behalf Of Michael Burns
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] $typename follow-up


A big reason Freescale is moving to SystemVerilog is portability - we 
want our code to work across different implementations. Perhaps 100% 
exact portability is not likely to be achieved in the near future, but 
it should be the goal.

There are some areas where it's not there (no standard attributes, no 
standard coverage database format); however, this looks like one that 
could affect simulation semantics if people are checking the type name.

--Mike Burns

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
> In terms of $typename, what are the user expectations?  Do users
> intend/expect to have $typename produce identical strings
> across implementations?  If not, that might make the specification
> somewhat easier since only the semantic decisions need to be
> addressed.  If users expect $typename to yield identical strings
> on every implementation, the bar is considerably higher since
> format decisions would also need to be made precise.
> 
> User feedback on this would be very helpful.  I've cc'd this
> to EC as well (EC only people - see the issues raised in
> Mantis 1511 to see the context for this question).
> 
> 
> Gord.