RE: [sv-bc] Generate with multiple begins

There is one major difference between nested generate blocks and the things that you are comparing them with. Nested generate blocks aren't useful for anything obvious.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Paul Graham
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:28 AM
To: Gordon Vreugdenhil
Cc: SV-BC; Wilson Snyder
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Generate with multiple begins

Nested concurrent begin/end blocks correspond syntactically to vhdl block statements, which can be nested. Why should vhdl have a feature which is not permitted in systemverilog? Singling out begin/end blocks to be unnestable when all other generate constructs are nestable is non-orthogonal. Furthermore, sequential begin/end blocks are nestable, so why not concurrent ones?

Finally, a user can get around the nesting restriction by writing dummy if-generate statements:

    if (1) begin: b1
        if (1) begin: b2
           ...
        end
    end

All these clues suggest that the rule disallowing nested concurrent begin/end blocks is a mistake.

Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Vreugdenhil" <gordonv@model.com>
To: "Wilson Snyder" <wsnyder@wsnyder.org>
Cc: "SV-BC" <sv-bc@eda.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:38:17 AM
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Generate with multiple begins

This dates back to the 2001 LRM. Originally "bare" generate blocks were legal but were made illegal in the 2005 LRM. Since there was no technical reason to make them illegal and support for "bare"
generate blocks is strictly a superset of the current language, most tools likely do accept them (either by default or with a switch) in order to accept legacy (and ongoing) use of such blocks in current designs.

Gord.

On 1/9/2011 6:24 PM, Wilson Snyder wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a user that sent me the following case which seems to work on
> several simulators, but I don't see that nested begin/ends are legal
> in generates according to the 2009 grammar. Is this an oversight in
> the grammar, or intended to fail? Can someone clarify please?
> Thanks!
>
> module t;
> generate
> if (1) begin : g1
> begin : g2
> initial $display("Hello");
> end
> begin : g3
> initial $display("World");
> end
> end
> endgenerate
> endmodule
>
> My reading of the grammar is thus:
>
> loop_generate_construct ::=
> FOR '(' ... ')' generate_block
>
> generate_block ::=
> generate_item
> | [ generate_block_identifier ':' ] BEGIN [ ':' generate_block_identifier ]
> { generate_item }
> yEND [ ':' generate_block_identifier ]
>
> generate_item ::=
> module_or_generate_item
> | interface_or_generate_item
> | checker_or_generate_item
>
> None of these three _item's have a path back to
> generate_block without hitting another generate
> if/case/for.
>
> Looking at it from the bottom up, the only relevant rules which use
> the begin/end keywords are seq_block and generate_block.
>
> generate_block called from
> loop_generate_construct,
> if_generate_construct,
> case_generate_item
>
> seq_block called from
> statement_item
>
> We're not in a statement, so begin must be preceeded by loop/if/case;
> there's no direct path from generate_item (etc).
>
> Thanks
>

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
-- 
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.