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...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now