MD: The standard mixes identification and classification. Have usecases where need to associate information of the same level to a component. E.g. sensors - would like to associate two or more values for the same information.
RK: This would not change any semantics or dependencies - just additional metadata.
DJ: Created issue #94 to separate identification and classification. Believe identifiers should be as short as possible.
ME: Have a problem with idea - seems to be evolving into a standard for each customer. Don’t understand why to include information which can’t be standardised/shared.
MD: Cannot specify everything. Not everyone agrees.
FR: As this keyword is used for searching it can be silicon vendor specific including marketing terms for the vendor. Can only specify that there is a search keyword and you can do some matching on it.
ED: Can offer key/value pairs - then it would be similar for everyone.
MD: The idea is to share the same structure but not impose specifying the information.
RK: Strings are visible to the user and could be confusing. Do you need a hidden field?
DJ: For us - something used for development but it shouldn’t be public. Will discuss with colleagues.
RK: Accept Mark’s comment but believe should accommodate external development processes.
FR: Agree with double approach. Need flexibility and reproducibility.
LM: Strong requirement from our team.
SH: Works well in combination with log file
JK: Additional linker flag?
SH: C and C++ flags are not guaranteed to be compatible. At the moment don’t know if you should specify C or C++ flags.
SH: Natural extension to provide same support in yaml files.
DB: Proposal has the assumption that the files are separated into project_1 and project_2. This may not be the case.
SH: Expect yaml files would be named uniquely even if in the same directory.
FR: Would like to keep the flexibility. Need to lock the tools in the cprj for reproducibility.
DB: Interactive bash script isn’t supported by all platforms.
RK: All you need is the config files to add a new compiler?
FR: Are there so many compilers - can we specify them? Maybe it’s more the versioning.