RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors

Dave,

I believe that the language of 1382 does indeed designate the dynamic
type. This is because it refers to the type of the *object* being
copied, not the type of the *handle* that refers the object being
copied. This could be clarified with a minor friendly enhancement to
1382, possibly as a separate mantis item.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:42 PM
To: William Paulsen; Arturo Salz; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors

Bill,

I can only speak for the people here at Mentor; yes we agree that the
dynamic class type is what is best.

Since 1382 has already passed in the WG and is being edited into the
upcoming draft, the most efficient thing to do is to open up a new
mantis item.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Paulsen [mailto:paulsen@cadence.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: Arturo Salz; Rich, Dave; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> Dave Rich:
> 
> Do people agree with Arturo about the type of "p1" in the example
below?
> (This is different from the first email comments I received.)
> 
> 
> And can 1382 be reopened, so that the errata can be modified?  Item 1
in
> the new paragraph would now be:
> 
> "1. An object of the >>> dynamic <<< class type being copied is
> allocated. This allocation shall not call the object's constructor or
> execute any variable declaration initialization assignments.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:10 PM
> To: William Paulsen; Rich, Dave; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I agree that the LRM needs to clarify this point.
> 
> The only type that I think makes sense is the dynamic type (c3 in your
> example).
> 
> 	Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Paulsen [mailto:paulsen@cadence.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:51 PM
> To: Arturo Salz; Rich, Dave; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> 
> But the errata for mantis 1382 seems ambiguous.  The first sentence of
> item 1 of the new paragraph says for shallow copy:
> 
> "An object of the class type being copied is allocated."
> 
> 
> Is this the static type?   Or the dynamic type?
> 
> In my example below, the static type of p2 is "class c2", but the
> dynamic type is "class c3":
> 
>      c1 p1 = new p2;  // what is the type of the object: c1, c2, or
c3?
> 
> 
> I think the errata should be explicit about the type (static or
> dynamic).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill
> 
> 
> Here's the mantis 1832 errata:
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/file_download.php?file_id=1500&type=bug
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:38 PM
> To: Rich, Dave; William Paulsen; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> Oops. I take that back. I just went and re-read the proposal.
> 
> Dave is right. The constructor new p2 creates an object of type c2 and
> the handle to the new object is assigned to p1.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> 	Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Arturo Salz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:28 PM
> To: Rich, Dave; William Paulsen; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> That is not what mantis 1382 was about.
> 
> In the example p1 is of type c1 (the base class). I believe the
question
> is whether the shallow copy performs an auto-cast from p2 to p1 in
this
> case. I believe the answer is yes.
> 
> 	Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Rich, Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:44 AM
> To: William Paulsen; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> This was mantis 0001382 which was approved in September.
> 
> p1 will be point to an object of type c2.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of William Paulsen
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:31 AM
> > To: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
> > Subject: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The LRM does not seem to be clear about the last statement in the
> > example below.  Can someone clarify this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill Paulsen
> >
> >
> >
> > module m;
> >     class c1
> >     endclass
> >
> >     class c2 extends c1;
> >     endclass
> >
> >     class c3 extends c2;
> >     endclass
> >
> >     c3 p3 = new;
> >     c2 p2 = p3;
> >     c1 p1 = new p2;  // what is the type of the object: c1, c2, or
c3?
> > endmodule
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.