Parameterized Classes, Static Members and the Factory Macros
Somebody asked me a simple question: Why do need two different macros (`ovm_object_utils and `ovm_object_param_utils) to register classes with the factory, and why can’t it tell me when I’ve used the wrong one? The answer turns out to be quite long, and demonstrates the dangers of using certain macros without first understanding the code behind them. Some I’m posting the response here. Adam Erickson will be presenting a paper Are Macros in OVM & UVM Evil? at the upcoming DVCon11 on Wednesday, March 2nd that goes into more details about the costs and benefits of the OVM macros.
First I need to talk about parameterized classes in SystemVerilog and how they interact with static members of those kinds of classes.
When you declare a parameterized class, it is more like a template, or generic class than a real class type. Only specializations of parameterized classes are real types. Suppose I have the two class definitions in the table below:
class B #(int w=1);
The class A definition by itself creates the static variable A::name initialized with the string “packet” without any other reference to class A. As soon as you add parameters to a class definition, like the parameter w in class B, the class becomes a generic class and the static variable name does not get created. As soon as there are specializations of the class B, each unique specialization causes the static variables inside the class to be instantiated. The following statements create two specializations of class B and two instances of the static variable. B#(2)::name and B#(3)::name are both set to “packet”.
typedef B#(2) B2;
The two class variable declarations (B3_1h and B3_2h) represent only one unique specialization of B because its parameters have the same value in both declarations. The variable B#(1)::name does not exist unless there is some other reference to B or B#(1) somewhere else.
What if you wanted the static string variable name to have a different value for each unique specialization of B? You could write something like
class B #(int w=1);
Now assuming the previous typedef and variable declarations above, B#(2)::name would have the value “packet2” and B#(3)::name would have the value “packet3”. There would be no instance B#(1)::name and the string “packet1” would never have been generated.
Now let us go back to the `ovm_object_utils macro. Suppose we have the following class definition
Looking at just the factory registration statement this macro inserts for us (this little one line macro expands to over 100 lines of code just to support the field automation macros), we see a typedef for a specialization of the parameterized class ovm_object_registry called type_id.
The specialized class type_id gives us access to all the static declarations inside ovm_object_registry. The code inside that class does something similar to what class A did above, except that it builds a global list of all string names and their associated types that can be used by the factory. The OVM gives you the choice of using the string name “packet” or the static function packetA::get_type() to set overrides, depending on which factory methods you use. The problem using the string names is that there is no type checking until run-time when the override statements are executed. We prefer you use type references to perform overrides
Finally, let us take a look at a parameterized class, but assume we used the same `ovm_object_utils macro.
There are two problems here. The first is that this is now a generic class. The string “packetB#(w)” will not put on the factory registration list unless there is a specialization of the class packetB somewhere. The second is that if there are more than one specializations of packetB, they all will be registered with the same string name, producing an error at run time.
The `ovm_object_param_utils macro simply leaves the second parameter to ovm_object_registry as the null string and forces you to use type references for your overrides. These type references also create the specializations needed to create the static methods inside these classes.
The references to packetB#(2) and extended_packetB#(2) are checked at compile time and cause the static methods within these references to be created.
You can use $psprintf to register a string name as long as the string is unique for each specialization of the class. This can be difficult when the parameters are types.
OK, I’m done. If you still need more background information. I recommend another DVCon09 paper I wrote with Adam about Using Parameterized and Factories.
Posted February 13th, 2011, by Dave Rich
- Loading tweets...
- Loading tweets...
- Loading tweets...
- Epilogue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- New Verification Horizons Issue Available
- Happy Halloween from ARM TechCon
- IEEE Standards Association Symposium on EDA Interoperability
- STMicroelectronics: Simulation + Emulation = Verification Success
- A Decade of SystemVerilog: Unifying Design and Verification?
- Part 12: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 11: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 10: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 9: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (3)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (6)
- Part 7: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Walking in the Desert or Drinking from a Fire Hose?
- Part 6: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- A Short Class on SystemVerilog Classes
- Part 5: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 4: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- June 2013 (2)
- May 2013 (4)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (4)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (6)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (2)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (6)
- Intelligent Testbench Automation Delivers 10X to 100X Faster Functional Verification
- Part 9: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Verification Horizons DAC Issue Now Available Online
- Accellera & OSCI Unite
- The IEEE’s Most Popular EDA Standards
- UVM Register Kit Available for OVM 2.1.2
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (7)
- User-2-User’s Functional Verification Track
- Part 7: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 6: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- SystemC Day 2011 Videos Available Now
- Part 5: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 4: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 3: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (3)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- The reports of OVM’s death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain)
- New Verification Academy Advanced OVM (&UVM) Module
- OVM/UVM @DAC: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
- DAC: Day 1; An Ode to an Old Friend
- UVM: Joint Statement Issued by Mentor, Cadence & Synopsys
- Static Verification
- OVM/UVM at DAC 2010
- DAC Panel: Bridging Pre-Silicon Verification and Post-Silicon Validation
- Accellera’s DAC Breakfast & Panel Discussion
- May 2010 (9)
- Easier UVM Testbench Construction – UVM Sequence Layering
- North American SystemC User Group (NASCUG) Meeting at DAC
- An Extension to UVM: The UVM Container
- UVM Register Package 2.0 Available for Download
- Accellera’s OVM: Omnimodus Verification Methodology
- High-Level Design Validation and Test (HLDVT) 2010
- New OVM Sequence Layering Package – For Easier Tests
- OVM 2.0 Register Package Released
- OVM Extensions for Testbench Reuse
- April 2010 (6)
- SystemC Day Videos from DVCon Available Now
- On Committees and Motivations
- The Final Signatures (the meeting during the meeting)
- UVM Adoption: Go Native-UVM or use OVM Compatibility Kit?
- UVM-EA (Early Adopter) Starter Kit Available for Download
- Accellera Adopts OVM 2.1.1 for its Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (5)
- January 2010 (5)
- December 2009 (15)
- A Cliffhanger ABV Seminar, Jan 19, Santa Clara, CA
- Truth in Labeling: VMM2.0
- IEEE Std. 1800™-2009 (SystemVerilog) Ready for Purchase & Download
- December Verification Horizons Issue Out
- Evolution is a tinkerer
- It Is Better to Give than It Is to Receive
- Zombie Alert! (Can the CEDA DTC “User Voice” Be Heard When They Won’t Let You Listen)
- DVCon is Just Around the Corner
- The “Standards Corner” Becomes a Blog
- I Am Honored to Honor
- IEEE Standards Association Awards Ceremony
- ABV and being from Missouri…
- Time hogs, blogs, and evolving underdogs…
- Full House – and this is no gamble!
- Welcome to the Verification Horizons Blog!
- September 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)