Yes, such command line switches would block `define in the HDL source of the compilation unit. So there is finer control in 3 pass (separate compile/elab/sim) tool flows. A 1 pass tool, where all HDL source is in one compile unit is probably not a good candidate for command line -undefineall. A -undefine <arg> to block later `define <arg> in the HDL source of the compilation unit would be useful in 3 pass and 1 pass compilation tool flows. To the second point, the actual name of such command line switches is vendor specifc, however defining a behaviour of such switches would be sensible from the outset, to avoid divergence. Regards Jonathan Feldman, Yulik wrote: > Hmm, the semantics of these command line switches is not clear to me. To > be unambiguous, the "undefinition" should happen at certain location > within the source files, since at different locations different macro > definition may be present. Are you suggesting that the semantics of > those switches will be just to ignore all the corresponding `define > directives, rather than to "undefine" them at certain location? > > Disregarding the above, I'm not sure it will be appropriate to even > mention any specific command line switches in the LRM. > > --Yulik. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Bradford;Freiburg [mailto:bradford@micronas.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:52 AM > To: Feldman, Yulik > Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 1090: `undefineall > > > On a similar note, allow for further 'tool specifc' command line > switches in the style of > -undefine <arg> > -undefineall > that override `define etc. in the HDL. > > The actual switch names are probably beyond the LRM, but the > functionality can be described. > > A command line '-undefine <arg>' mechanism would be really useful to > overcome hardwired > `define settings that influence `ifdef decisions in an HDL file. > > Regards > > Jonathan Bradford > > > Feldman, Yulik wrote: > >> >> >> Should the directive undefine all macros defined with `define only or >> also macros defined through the tool's command line switches (like >> > -D)? > >> I understand that this may be beyond the LRM, but it may be quite >> important in practice. >> >> Probably the directive should undefine only the `define macros, >> > because > >> otherwise the directive won't be too useful (since once the command >> > line > >> macros are undefined, there will be no way to define them again). In >> that case, it may be better to change the wording to refer to `define >> explicitly, to avoid ambiguity. >> >> --Yulik. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] >> > On > >> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom >> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:32 AM >> To: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org >> Subject: [sv-bc] Mantis 1090: `undefineall >> >> >> >> I added the following proposal to Mantis 1090: >> >> In 1800, >> >> INSERT >> >> 23.5 `undefineall >> >> The `undefineall directive shall undefine all previously defined text >> macros. This directive takes no arguments and may appear anywhere. >> >> Shalom >> >> Shalom Bresticker >> >> Intel Jerusalem LAD DA >> >> +972 2 589-6852 >> >> +972 54 721-1033 >> >> I don't represent Intel >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Jonathan Bradford CAD Engineer Phone +49 (0)761 517 2884 Fax +49 (0)761 517 2880 mailto:jonathan.bradford@micronas.com MICRONAS GmbH Hans-Bunte-Str.19 D-79108 Freiburg Germany http://www.micronas.comReceived on Thu Aug 24 06:35:59 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 24 2006 - 06:36:05 PDT