From: Greg Jaxon <Greg.Jaxon@synopsys.com>
Date: Mon Oct 25 2010 - 13:40:49 PDT
"Contents" that can support data flow (i.e. any nets or variables)
outside the modules or interfaces of a library
require support not provided in the 1800-2009 standard.
But the question concerned typedefs and $unit's
localparams, for which little if any support is needed
beyond what's already in the 1800-2009 document.
This "Schema Definition" content probably influenced the analysis
and elaboration of the library designs.
So the question seems natural: is it also available to influence the
analysis or elaboration of the library's clients?
Here, I think the committee has always been implicitly guided by the
conventions of C language libraries - i.e. a library's static
content has no syntactic handle unless provided by an included
header file.
Without that syntactic handle, $unit content of a
library element will only support the internal operation of the
library contents,
and will be unrecognized when analyzing or elaborating library
clients.
That said, this viewpoint is mostly Implicit and may only be my
personal Bias.
It would probably be instructive to document any divergence on these
points, and to explain whatever elaboration and/or linkage model
justifies the chosen behaviors.
Personally, I think $unit content that descends from a
single source code location ought to "unify" with itself wherever
outright copies are brought together during linkage of a distributed
design.
This must happen in diverse ways on different systems; so the
subject won't be easy to standardize.
Greg
P.S. disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer's position
On 10/25/2010 10:04 AM, Gran, Alex wrote:
It has been a about a
year since I worked with any of my end users on this topic,
but at one time I
believe there was vendor divergence on how this was handled.So I would agree that if portability
was
primary goal it would be a good thing to avoid.
~Alex
From:owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:28 PM To: Rich, Dave; SV-BC Subject: RE: [sv-bc] $unit in library files?
Which
means
that a user should not do it if he wants his code to be
portable.
Shalom
From: Rich,
Dave
[mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:40 AM To: Bresticker, Shalom; SV-BC Subject: RE: [sv-bc] $unit in library files?
Library files(-y and –v) are
not part of the standard, so
whether content is allowed outside a design element is
beyond the scope of the
standard.
A subject
that seems to be undefined in the LRM is whether
library files (individual
files, or library directories) can contain content,
such as typedefs, outside
the design element declarations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all
copies.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Oct 25 13:41:09 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Mon Oct 25 2010 - 13:43:45 PDT