RE: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with port declarations

It's not painful if you use separate compilation $units, which is
exactly what you would do to define the arguments to a C/C++ subroutine.

 

I think it's OK to allow an import, typedefs, and localparams in the #()
parameter list as long as you define them to be invisible to positional
parameter overrides.

 

Dave

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:27 PM
To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with
port declarations

 

So to make full use of packages I need to also use $unit?  Painful.

 

I'd much prefer to be able to list the import in the parameter
declarations, and, of course, localparams and typedefs, too.

 

  package shared_decls;

     localparam WIDTH = 32;

 

     typedef struct packed {

     logic [ 7:0] opcode;

     logic [23:0] addr;

     } instruction_t;

  endpackage : shared_decls

 

  extern module M 

    #(

       import shared_decls::*,

       typedef logic [WIDTH-1:0] T,

       parameter SIZE = 2048

     )(

       input T data,

       input instruction_t a,

       output T result

     );

  

 

________________________________

From: francoise martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:01 PM
To: 'Brad Pierce'; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with
port declarations

 

Today, either you have the import shared_decls::* before the module
declaration.

Or you use full package references: shared_decls::WIDTH

 
shared_decls::instruction_t

 

Francoise

       '

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Brad Pierce
	Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:42 PM
	To: sv-bc@eda.org
	Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages
with port declarations

	How about the following?  Also illegal?

	 

	  module m (data, a, result);

	    input [WIDTH-1:0] data; 
	    input instruction_t a; 
	    output [WIDTH-1:0] result;
	    import shared_decls::* // this defines WIDTH and
instruction_t used above 
	    ... 
	  endmodule

	 

	-- Brad

	
________________________________


	From: Warmke, Doug [mailto:doug_warmke@mentor.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:36 AM
	To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages
with port declarations

	 

	Brad,

	 

	That example is illegal.

	 

	You have to place the

	 

	  import shared_decls::*;

	 

	statement in $unit scope, somewhere

	before the module declaration in the input stream.

	 

	The compiler needs to see any types etc. used in

	port declarations before the ports are declared.

	 

	Regards,

	Doug

		 

		
________________________________


		From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
		Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:33 AM
		To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
		Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use
packages with port declarations

		Following up on  http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2546.html .

		 

		Is it correct that a package "import statement affects
declarations in the scope that contains the import, regardless of the
relative order of the declarations and imports statements"?

		 

		If so, does a package import affect ANSI-style module
port declarations?  For example, 

		   module ( input [WIDTH-1:0] data, 
		            input instruction_t a, 
		            output [WIDTH-1:0] result 
		          ); 
		      import shared_decls::* // this defines WIDTH and
instruction_t used above 
		    ... 
		  endmodule 

		See also

		 

		    http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2547.html

		    http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2548.html

		 

		-- Brad