Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal for extern modules
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 15:03:08 PST
Hi Peter, Karen;
You wrote:
>The question is: do you want to support separate compilation?
This is not the question. The question is:
What is required to support separate compilation?
It is not a 'either you do or do not get this' question.
The current proposal places the entire burden on the user to show the tools
the interfaces. As is always recommended
"Do not copy information that can instead be shared or referenced."
This proposal requires the user to do one of two things.
1. Create an external port definition in an include file for every module
that would be instantiated with .*. And declare the module interface with
.* .
2. Make and maintain an external port definition for each module.
The first would be the right thing to do because there are no copies.
The second thing would be the wrong thing to do because there is a chance
for the interface to be wrong (because everything changes.)
So the question really is - do you place the requirement on the tools to
build and maintain this information that it MAY need, or do you place the
requirement on the user to build and maintain this information for a tool
that they have.
Several have indicated that some modules may be available for the tool. If the
module is not available then neither can the user provide the information
you require. The information is available - it just needs to be stored/accessed.
A tool can store this information in its databases/files. The requirement is the
same, build and maintain this information that it needs.
Thanks.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 15:04:56 PST