Jump to content

UVM factory usage recommendation inconsistent with base class implementation.

Recommended Posts

The usage section of the factory documentation recommends a specific pattern for creating components parameterized by type

However, uvm_sequence_item::type_name is not defined.  Therefore defining a type based on the uvm_sequence_item, following this recommendation will result in a compilation error.  I have put together an example illustrating this: https://www.edaplayground.com/x/3N_9

Parameterization on uvm_sequence_item is one example, I would suggest that parameterization on base classes is allowed and they have type_name defined.

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