Matt, Is a compiler directive definitely sufficient in the presence of generate? Compiler directives and macro extensions happen before generate unrolling, so if `define INST(module,args) \ module i``module```counter``args \ `incr(counter,1) `define GEN GEN```counter and then for (genvar I = 0; I < 8; I++) begin : `GEN `INST(this_mod,(out[I],in[I])) end for (genvar I = 0; I < 8; I++) begin : `GEN `INST(that_mod,(out[I],in[I])) end the instance names are GEN0[0].i_this_mod0 GEN0[1].i_this_mod0 ... GEN0[7].i_this_mod0 and GEN1[0].i_that_mod1 GEN1[1].i_that_mod1 ... GEN1[7].i_that_mod1 Is that definitely going to be sufficient? If there were instead a system function as originally requested, then the localparam values corresponding to the unrolled genvars would still be available during generate unrolling. On the other hand, those values are there in the generated names already. -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:07 AM To: Gordon Vreugdenhil; Greg Jaxon Cc: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] A new proposal uploaded for issue 216 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On >Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:01 PM >To: Greg Jaxon >Cc: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org >Subject: Re: [sv-bc] A new proposal uploaded for issue 216 > > > > >Still, is there any good reason for not making this look like >a normal macro invocation? If we don't do that, all >occurrences will have to be on separate lines (was that the intent?). I was trying to model it after `define by starting from this: `define a 1 `define a a+1 and moving to `incr a `incr a 1 I'm open to making it look like any other macro call (e.g `incr(macro,val) ) as long as it delivers the desired semantics. Matt -- Matt Maidment mmaidmen@ichips.intel.comReceived on Thu May 5 13:53:46 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 05 2005 - 13:53:55 PDT