RE: [sv-bc] e-mail vote: closes Feb 5th

As I wrote, I did not know what the correct answer is.
You say that UDP terminals are like gate terminals.
Fine.
I just want it to be written explicitly.

> UDP connections work like gate terminals.  They are scalar
> nets.  The
> UDP instance can be declared with a drive strength, which will
> be
> driven onto the output, unmodified by any intervening
> continuous
> assignment.  They cannot be connected by name (even though the
> UDP
> declaration appears to give them names like module ports).  If
> a
> multi-bit expression is connected to an input, it will get
> reduction-ORed
> to a single bit that gets connected, like a gate terminal.
> This is
> unlike a connection to a scalar module port, where the value
> will get
> truncated.

[Shalom] Here, tool behavior is not unanimous. See
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/521.html
(http://www.eda.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=0001074)


> 
> In every way I can think of that terminals are different from
> ports,
> UDP connections work like terminals.  Are there any other
> aspects that
> you are concerned about that I missed?

[Shalom] No, I just said I did not know.

> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the term "port" was used in the
> description
> of the UDP declaration itself.  After all, they look a lot like
> module
> port declarations, so the term may have sneaked in.

[Shalom] It is, and that concerns me. I would propose adding a sentence
in 11.6.6 that UDP terminals are like gate terminals, add a similar
sentence in 8.1.2 or 8.6, and see whether any of the references to UDP
"ports" can be easily changed to "terminals".

Shalom