Mike,
Thanks! Would you say that "platform" conceptually should include the
processor architecture in some way? Or something else?
I am also assuming that "compiler" really can be any arbitrary string and that
no strict format applies to the contents, outside of the dash-vs-underscore
rules. I have been assuming that the entire objective of supporting multiple
compilers for the same architecture and operating system is to allow different
potential optimizations to be made available to the tool user at simulation
time, such as:
Solaris5.10_HyPrecizionSlowBinaryCompiler2.3.3_64
Solaris5.10_SpeeDeeBinaryCompiler7.2_64
Correct?
* MM
From: Mike LaBonte <mlabonte@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 10:30 AM
To: Mirmak, Michael <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-editorial] Another editorial issue with 6.1
Sounds good, and I've added it to
ver6_1_known_issues.docx<http://ibis.org/ver6.1/ver6_1_known_issues.docx>. At
first I was even wondering if we could stop using the term "platform"
altogether, but I see that Platform_Compiler_Bits is used explicitly as part of
Executable. And yet, none of the examples we give spell out a complete platform:
Linux_gcc3.2.3_32
Solaris5.10_gcc4.1.1_64
Solaris_cc5.7_32
Windows_VisualStudio7.1.3088_32
HP-UX_accA.03.52_32
But we don't mandate exact platform or compiler specifications, so at the end
of the day tools probably just look at the files to see which one looks like it
might load and run.
Mike
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 1:15 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Another editorial issue with 6.1
I believe there's a minor editorial issue with the usage of "platform" vs.
"operating system" and "architecture" in IBIS 6.1. While there are a few fixes
that could be made in this area, the most striking one is on page. 172:
The EDA tool will check for the compiler information and verify if the
executable model file is compatible with the operating system and platform.
Multiple occurrences, without duplication, of Executable are permitted to allow
for providing executable model files for as many combinations of operating
system platforms and compilers for the same algorithmic model.
I believe this should be:
The EDA tool will check for the compiler information and verify if the
executable model file is compatible with the platform (operating system and
architecture).
Multiple occurrences, without duplication, of Executable are permitted, to
support executable model files for many combinations of operating system,
architecture, and compiler for the same algorithmic model.
* MM
