RE: [sv-bc] Proposal for compatibility problems with mixed Verilog/SystemVerilog code

Mark,

I don't think this proposal precludes tool writers from establishing
file extension rules or proprietary command line options to help
users specify language versions. Most likely such mechanisms will
need to be in place for the long haul.

This proposal does allow users to assemble more portable source decks,
thus gaining a little more independence from specific tool flows.
I think the proposal makes sense and will generally improve
the language.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Hartoog
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:01 AM
> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Proposal for compatibility problems with
> mixed Verilog/SystemVerilog code
>
> I am not thrilled with this proposal. This is trying to solve a real
> problem, but this is the most awkward way of solving this problem
> for users.
>
> If you have -v and -y libraries, you will need to put the `keywords
> on every single library file, since you have no control over what
> order these files are read. If you are using a mix of P1800 and
> 1364-2001 tools, you will have to have two versions of all your
> libraries, one with the `keywords for P1800 tools and one without
> the keywords for 1364-2001 tools. You might be able to avoid
> duplicating all the source using a P1800 library like:
>
> `keywords "1364-2001"
> `include <actual 1364 souce file>
> `endkeywords
>
> But you still end up with two complete libraries.
>
> Using file extension rules to distinguish keyword sets requires
> no changes to the users actual source code and will allow the
> same libraries to work with P1800 and 1364-2001 tools.
> Unfortunately, file extension rules are really outside the
> domain of the current LRM.
>
> Mark Hartoog
> 700 E. Middlefield Road
> Mountain View, CA 94043
> 650 584-5404
> markh@synopsys.com
>
Received on Tue Nov 30 09:05:02 2004