RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] timeunit Declaration Verbosity

Hi, Shalom -

So would you support an abbreviated form of the internal 
timeunit-timeprecision pair of statements?

Regards - Cliff

At 07:11 AM 10/15/2006, Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>I personally go the other way and tell people not to use timescales at
>all. My experience is that the more modules which have timescales, the
>more troubles you have.
>
>Shalom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
>On
> > Behalf Of Clifford E. Cummings
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:13 PM
> > To: sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] timeunit Declaration Verbosity
> >
> > Hi, All -
> >
> > Heath first sent this to the EC but perhaps it would better reside in
> > the BC(?)
> >
> > Heath brings up what is also my primary objection to the new timeunit
> > / timeprecision pair of keywords.
> >
> > Due to its convenience, I prefer and I recommend to students that the
> > add a `timescale in front of every module that contains time delays
> > (due to compile-order issues). The one nice feature for the new
> > timeunit-timeprecision keywords is that when placed in a module, they
> > are local to the module and turn off at the end of the module,
> > allowing simulations to return to their regularly scheduled
> > `timescale. For that reason, I recommend the new more verbose
> > constructs to IP providers, so that their code will not change any
> > other active `timescale in the user's design.
> >
> > If I could combine the timeunit 1ns / 1ns; as Heath has recommended,
> > then I would switch my allegiance and favor this new construct. I
> > prefer the "/" separator just because it is like the `timescale
> > separator but I could go with either option described by Heath.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards - Cliff
> >
> > At 04:20 PM 9/25/2006, Heath Chambers wrote:
> >
> > >Was the verbosity of the new timeunit and timeprecision
> > >declarations brought up when they were first introduced?
> > >
> > >I'm used to putting `timescale in front of every module
> > >that I have that has a time delay inside; but if I want
> > >to follow that same convention using the new declarations,
> > >a significant amount of extra typing is required.
> > >
> > >How difficult would it be (from a vendor perspective and
> > >from a committee perspective) to allow something like
> > >the following one line shortcut:
> > >   timeunit time_literal [ / time_literal];
> > >   OR
> > >   timeunit time_literal [ , time_literal];
> > >
> > >The first time_literal would be the time unit and the
> > >optional second time_literal would be the time precision.
> > >The separator could either be the / like the `timescale
> > >directive or a comma, which ever the committee decided
> > >would be best.
> > >
> > >Example:
> > >   timeunit 1ns/10ps;
> > >   ==
> > >   timeunit 1ns;
> > >   timeprecision 10ps;
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >-- Heath

----------------------------------------------------
Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training