| Number | 525
|
| Notify-List |
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator
|
| State | lrmdraft
|
| Class | errata-ptf
|
| Arrival-Date | Jan 05 2004
|
| Originator | Charles Dawson
|
| Release |
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
When the callback occurs, the callback routine is passed a s_cb_data structure. The specification should say that this memory is only good for as long as the callback routine is active, and any info needed by the application should be copied. This goes for the sub structures as well. |
| Fix |
Section 27.33. After the paragraph that begins: The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to the application routine, which shall be ... Add the following new paragraph: The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures to which it points belong to the simulator. If the application needs any of this data, it must copy it prior to returning from the callback routine. |
| Audit-Trail |
Fix replaced by chas@cadence.com on Fri Jan 30 07:38:08 2004 Section 27.33. After the paragraph that begins: The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to the application routine, which shall be ... Add the following new paragraph: The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures to which it points belong to the tool. If the application needs any of this data, it must copy it prior to returning from the callback routine. Also, there are references in this section to the "simulator". Do we want to change these to "tool"? If not, then I would change "tool" above to "simulator". From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com To: chas@cadence.com Cc: ptf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:24:58 +0200 (IST) On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 chas@cadence.com wrote: > Section 27.33. > > After the paragraph that begins: > > The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to > the application routine, which shall be ... I think the comma after "routine" should not be there, and then the word "which" should be "that". Also, cb_rtn is not actually set to the application routine itself, but rather set to a pointer to the application routine, no? > Add the following new paragraph: > > The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an > s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures > to which it points belong to the tool. If the application > needs any of this data, it must copy it prior to returning > from the callback routine. Doesn't the first sentence in this new paragraph duplicate the paragraph preceding Figure 188: "The cb_data_p argument shall point to a s_cb_data structure, which is defined in vpi_user.h and given in Figure 188." ? > Also, there are references in this section to the "simulator". > Do we want to change these to "tool"? If not, then I would > change "tool" above to "simulator". > > http://boydtechinc.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&database=default&pr=525 -- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Design, Verification & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478 Fix replaced by chas@cadence.com on Fri Jun 25 14:24:12 2004 Section 27.33. After the paragraph that begins: The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to the application routine, which shall be ... Add the following new paragraph: The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures to which it points belong to the simulator. If the application needs any of this data, it must copy it prior to returning from the callback routine. From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:47:47 +0300 (IDT) On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 chas@cadence.com wrote: > Section 27.33. > > After the paragraph that begins: > > The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to > the application routine, which shall be ... I think the comma after "routine" should not be there, and then the word "which" should be "that". Also, cb_rtn is not actually set to the application routine itself, but rather set to a pointer to the application routine, no? > Add the following new paragraph: > > The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an > s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures > to which it points belong to the simulator. If the application > needs any of this data, it must copy it prior to returning > from the callback routine. Doesn't the first sentence in this new paragraph duplicate the paragraph preceding Figure 188: "The cb_data_p argument shall point to a s_cb_data structure, which is defined in vpi_user.h and given in Figure 188." ? There should be a comma after "to which it points". "it must copy it" is bad English. You could write, "it must copy the needed data". > http://boydtechinc.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&database=default&pr=525 Shalom From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com> To: <Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com>, <ptf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:35:06 -0400 As far as the comma is concerned, I believe it to be correct. I have the 1994 version of the IEEE Standards Style Manual, Section 7.3.2, "That and which," which says that "'That' is best reserved in essential (or restrictive) clause, 'which' is appropriate in nonessential (or nonrestrictive), parenthetical clauses." In the present case, since there is no question as to which application routine we're talking about, the subordinate clause is "nonessential" or "nonrestrictive"; that is, it does not further identify the application routine. So, ", which" is correct according to IEEE usage. Regards, Jim Vellenga --------------------------------------------------------- James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com 270 Billerica Rd Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 "We all work with partial information." ---------------------------------------------------------- ] -----Original Message----- ] From: owner-ptf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-ptf@boyd.com] On ] Behalf Of Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com ] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:50 AM ] To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com ] Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback ] routine's structures should be allocated by simulator ] ] ] The following reply was made to PR errata/525; it has been ] noted by GNATS. ] ] From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com ] To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com ] Cc: ] Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback ] routine's structures ] should be allocated by simulator ] Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:47:47 +0300 (IDT) ] ] On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 chas@cadence.com wrote: ] ] > Section 27.33. ] > ] > After the paragraph that begins: ] > ] > The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to ] > the application routine, which shall be ... ] ] I think the comma after "routine" should not be there, ] and then the word "which" should be "that". ] ] Also, cb_rtn is not actually set to the application routine itself, ] but rather set to a pointer to the application routine, no? ] ] ] > Add the following new paragraph: ] > From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com> To: "Charlie Dawson" <chas@cadence.com>, <ptf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:41:18 -0400 I'm sorry, but I got confused about who is supposed to do what to whom. Pointers to s_cb_data structures get passed both ways. Perhaps we could clarify the responsible tool in the first sentence of the new paragraph by saying Whenever the simulator invokes the callback routine, it shall pass the routine a pointer to an s_cb_data structure.... What would you think of that? Regards, Jim Vellenga --------------------------------------------------------- James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com 270 Billerica Rd Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 "We all work with partial information." ---------------------------------------------------------- ] -----Original Message----- ] From: owner-ptf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-ptf@boyd.com] On ] Behalf Of Charlie Dawson ] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:24 PM ] To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com ] Subject: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's ] structures should be allocated by simulator ] ] ] Section 27.33. ] ] After the paragraph that begins: ] ] The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to ] the application routine, which shall be ... ] ] Add the following new paragraph: ] ] The callback routine shall be passed a pointer to an ] s_cb_data structure. This structure, and all structures ] to which it points belong to the simulator. If the ] application needs any of this data, it must copy it prior ] to returning from the callback routine. ] ] http://wa.boyd.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&database=default&pr =525 From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com> To: Jim Vellenga <vellenga@cadence.com> Cc: ptf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:49:50 +0300 Maybe I misunderstood. As written, "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to the application routine, which shall be invoked when the simulator executes the callback," it is equivalent to saying, "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to the application routine. The application routine shall be invoked when the simulator executes the callback." Is that the intent? When reading it, I thought the intent was to state which application routine cb_rtn should point to. Shalom Jim Vellenga wrote: > As far as the comma is concerned, I believe it to be > correct. I have the 1994 version of the IEEE Standards > Style Manual, Section 7.3.2, "That and which," which > says that "'That' is best reserved in essential (or > restrictive) clause, 'which' is appropriate in nonessential > (or nonrestrictive), parenthetical clauses." > In the present case, since there is no question > as to which application routine we're talking about, > the subordinate clause is "nonessential" or "nonrestrictive"; > that is, it does not further identify the application > routine. So, ", which" is correct according to > IEEE usage. -- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 5441478 [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com> To: "Shalom Bresticker" <Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com> Cc: <ptf-bugs@boyd.com> Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:07:25 -0400 Perhaps I in turn was mistaken, but I did think that the first interpretation was correct. Is there another application routine involved? Regards, Jim Vellenga --------------------------------------------------------- James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com 270 Billerica Rd Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 "We all work with partial information." ---------------------------------------------------------- ] -----Original Message----- ] From: shalom@az33exr01.mot.com ] [mailto:shalom@az33exr01.mot.com] On Behalf Of Shalom Bresticker ] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:50 AM ] To: Jim Vellenga ] Cc: ptf-bugs@boyd.com ] Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback ] routine's structures should be allocated by simulator ] ] ] Maybe I misunderstood. ] ] As written, ] ] "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to ] the application ] routine, which shall be invoked when the simulator executes ] the callback," ] ] it is equivalent to saying, ] ] "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to ] the application ] routine. ] The application routine shall be invoked when the simulator ] executes the ] callback." ] ] Is that the intent? ] ] When reading it, I thought the intent was to state which ] application routine ] cb_rtn should point to. ] ] Shalom ] ] ] Jim Vellenga wrote: ] ] > As far as the comma is concerned, I believe it to be ] > correct. I have the 1994 version of the IEEE Standards ] > Style Manual, Section 7.3.2, "That and which," which ] > says that "'That' is best reserved in essential (or ] > restrictive) clause, 'which' is appropriate in nonessential ] > (or nonrestrictive), parenthetical clauses." ] > In the present case, since there is no question ] > as to which application routine we're talking about, ] > the subordinate clause is "nonessential" or "nonrestrictive"; ] > that is, it does not further identify the application ] > routine. So, ", which" is correct according to ] > IEEE usage. ] ] -- ] Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker ] @freescale.com ] Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: ] +972 9 9522268 ] Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: ] +972 9 9522890 ] POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: ] +972 50 5441478 ] ] [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only ] [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary ] ] ] ] From: Francoise Martinolle <fm@cadence.com> To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com, vellenga@cadence.com Cc: Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:28:15 -0400 (EDT) I suggest to use 2 sentences as Shalom presented. >X-Authentication-Warning: isvw3.cadence.com: iscan owned process doing -bs >Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:10:00 -0700 >From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com> >To: ptf-bugs@boyd.com >Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator >X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:99.2416 C:51.8443 ) >X-Received: By mailgate.Cadence.COM as GAA26817 at Mon Jun 28 06:12:00 2004 > >The following reply was made to PR errata/525; it has been noted by GNATS. > >From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com> >To: "Shalom Bresticker" <Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com> >Cc: <ptf-bugs@boyd.com> >Subject: RE: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback routine's structures should be allocated by simulator >Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:07:25 -0400 > > Perhaps I in turn was mistaken, but I did think that > the first interpretation was correct. Is there another > application routine involved? > > Regards, > Jim Vellenga > > --------------------------------------------------------- > James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 > Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 > Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com > 270 Billerica Rd > Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 > "We all work with partial information." > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ] -----Original Message----- > ] From: shalom@az33exr01.mot.com > ] [mailto:shalom@az33exr01.mot.com] On Behalf Of Shalom Bresticker > ] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:50 AM > ] To: Jim Vellenga > ] Cc: ptf-bugs@boyd.com > ] Subject: Re: errata/525: PROPOSAL - Memory for callback > ] routine's structures should be allocated by simulator > ] > ] > ] Maybe I misunderstood. > ] > ] As written, > ] > ] "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to > ] the application > ] routine, which shall be invoked when the simulator executes > ] the callback," > ] > ] it is equivalent to saying, > ] > ] "The cb_rtn field of the s_cb_data structure shall be set to > ] the application > ] routine. > ] The application routine shall be invoked when the simulator > ] executes the > ] callback." > ] > ] Is that the intent? > ] > ] When reading it, I thought the intent was to state which > ] application routine > ] cb_rtn should point to. > ] > ] Shalom > ] > ] > ] Jim Vellenga wrote: > ] > ] > As far as the comma is concerned, I believe it to be > ] > correct. I have the 1994 version of the IEEE Standards > ] > Style Manual, Section 7.3.2, "That and which," which > ] > says that "'That' is best reserved in essential (or > ] > restrictive) clause, 'which' is appropriate in nonessential > ] > (or nonrestrictive), parenthetical clauses." > ] > In the present case, since there is no question > ] > as to which application routine we're talking about, > ] > the subordinate clause is "nonessential" or "nonrestrictive"; > ] > that is, it does not further identify the application > ] > routine. So, ", which" is correct according to > ] > IEEE usage. > ] > ] -- > ] Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker > ] @freescale.com > ] Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: > ] +972 9 9522268 > ] Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: > ] +972 9 9522890 > ] POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: > ] +972 50 5441478 > ] > ] [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only > ] [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary > ] > ] > ] > ] > > |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology