[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Wrong SV code in VMM

From: Mirek Forczek <mirekf_at_.....>
Date: Fri Jul 18 2008 - 04:43:52 PDT
Right, virtual method prototype vs its override is ok with defaults
resolution, if both are specified - at declarations level. 

I'm still thinking about 'extern declaration' and 'out-of-block definition'
of the same method.
If both have defaults specified and they are different - which one the
compiler shall choose ?

Also notice that in case of virtual methods: both the prototype and the
override may use 'extern declaration' and 'out-of-block definition' syntax.
That will give a four defaults in a code for the same thing ...

IMO, the language defitinion would be better when:
- default at the 'out-of-block definition' shall not be required, or even
fobidden,
- default at the override shall not be obligatory, if it is not specified -
the default of prototype shall apply. 

It is not a good OO practice to provide different default in override from
that in prototype.
In most cases people will have to copy & past the default specification from
prototype to override (as it is obligatory now), than they will have to take
care of all the overrides whenever the default value changes ... 

Mirek 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: 18 lipca 2008 13:25
To: Mirek Forczek; Surya Pratik Saha; sv-ec@server.eda.org;
sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Wrong SV code in VMM

I don't think so, but I would imagine that it would take the default of the
override.

Shalom 

> Does the LRM define than which one of the two default expressions 
> shall be taken by the compiler for code generation ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender and delete all copies.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Jul 18 04:44:54 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 18 2008 - 04:45:04 PDT