[P4-design] Any practical use for parser, control, or package type declarations outside of an architecture definition?

Vladimir Gurevich vag at barefootnetworks.com
Tue Apr 4 01:11:06 EDT 2017


Hi Andy,

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.

Thanks,
Vladimir

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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P4-design mailing list
> P4-design at lists.p4.org
> http://lists.p4.org/mailman/listinfo/p4-design_lists.p4.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.p4.org/pipermail/p4-design_lists.p4.org/attachments/20170403/f8f5dc6b/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the P4-design mailing list