[P4-design] Any practical use for parser, control, or package type declarations outside of an architecture definition?
vag at barefootnetworks.com
Tue Apr 4 01:11:06 EDT 2017
Perhaps it's a little far fetched, but I can envision the creation of
sub-architectures. We start with the architecture supplied by the HW
vendor. Then someone (e.g. an OEM) writes a P4 program, but in such a
manner that it leaves some "holes" that can be further filled in by the
code, written by the end user. The specification of these holes is a
sub-architecture. Syntactically, it is still an architecture definition,
but the point is that it might be something written fairly often and not
only by the target vendors.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Andy Fingerhut (jafinger) <
jafinger at cisco.com> wrote:
> Is there any practical use for writing a parser, control, or package type
> declaration outside of an architecture definition?
> I haven’t thought of one, but wanted to see if I was missing something.
> P4-design mailing list
> P4-design at lists.p4.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the P4-design