Re: [sv-bc] Should the LRM allow a frustrated bind statement?

maybe I do not understand exactly what you mean but why not:

    module checker1;
         parameter p=0;
         initial $display("%m",p);
    endmodule
    module target;
         parameter pp=0;
    endmodule

    module top;
         target #(1) uut1();
         target #(2) uut2();
         target #(8) uut8();
         bind target checker1 #(pp)ch();

    endmodule



W dniu 3/26/2014 4:18 PM, Rich, Dave pisze:
>
> A very similar issue came up on one of the forums 
> <https://verificationacademy.com/forums/systemverilog/i-have-share-moduleused-inside-many-other-modules-parameterizable-input/output-bus-width-how-do-i-write-sva-so-i-dont-have-bind-individual-instance> 
> recently.  There is no way to connect the parameters of the target 
> instances to the parameters bound instance. This may force you into 
> the situation you encountered.
>
> Have you considered using a checker instead?
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Jonathan Bromley
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:23 AM
> *To:* sv-bc@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-bc] Should the LRM allow a frustrated bind statement?
>
> hello BC,
>
> We recently encountered a problem where we have a bind statement that 
> specifies binding into a target module (not a named instance), but 
> certain parameterizations of the design can cause there to be no 
> elaborated instance of the target module. Tools complain about this, 
> and that's probably correct per 1800-2012 because the preamble to 
> 23.11 says
>
> "a bind construct that is used to specify one or more instantiations"
>
> I can't find any other part of the LRM that describes how to handle 
> this situation, nor can I find any Mantis relating to it.
>
> In practice this corner case is extremely inconvenient, and it would 
> be much preferable for tools to report only a warning in this case. 
> Does SV-BC have an opinion on this? If there is no obvious reason for 
> prohibiting such "frustrated" binds, I will raise a Mantis item about it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan Bromley
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.