RE: [sv-bc] Instantiating gates, primitives and modules in interfaces

From: Jay Lawrence <lawrence_at_.....>
Date: Fri Apr 28 2006 - 04:57:50 PDT
OK, I can't resist this one.
 
This was discussed ad nauseum in Accellera SV 3.1.
 
The basic issue debated was whether there was difference between
interfaces and modules. As many of you recall, I held the position that
an interface was simply the passing of an entire module on a port list
(equivalent to what is now a SystemC channel). Others (mostly Peter
Flake), held that they were a new unique object intended to model the
behavior of interconnect.
 
If we now allow all the same content as modules in interfaces then we
should once and for all get rid of the artificial distinction. Modules
and interfaces are aliases and modules should be passable as ports.
 
Hi everybody,
 
Jay
 

===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
=================================== 

 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Brad Pierce
	Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:52 PM
	To: sv-bc@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-bc] Instantiating gates, primitives and modules in
interfaces
	
	

	In http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=902 Brad
suggests allowing gates, primitives and modules to be instantiated
inside interfaces.  See also Yulik's comments in
http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/3473.html .

	 

	Opinions?

	 

	-- Brad

	 

	 
Received on Fri Apr 28 04:57:56 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 28 2006 - 04:58:08 PDT