Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Late to the game, but I think it is a bad compromise to choose two different PSS input languages. A DSL is an obvious choice, C++ is unsuitable in my opinion. This is nicely demonstrated by examples 134 vs. 135. There is also historic evidence for this in the now forgotten SystemC-for-verification standard. I advise to reconsider this decision, keeping in mind that a generation of verification engineers will have to bear with its consequences.

Thorsten Dworzak, Verification Engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thorsten,

Thanks for the feedback. Please keep in mind that the semantics for both input formats is identical. Since the semantics define what the output code will look like, that's really the important part of the standard. We do not anticipate a "language war" because of this semantic equivalence.

Tom Fitzpatrick
PSWG Vice-Chair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

thanks for the reply, a valid argument.

Looking ahead, there will be a demand for re-usable system-level IP that must be tool/vendor independent. This will most certainly trigger the discussion about the dual-input-language decision again...

/Thorsten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...