RE: [sv-bc] .name and .*

Shalom,

The .name and .* do have different rules for unconnected ports.

The .name connection follows the same rules for unconnected ports as the
explicit named connections.  If a port is not named, it is implicitly not
connected.

The .* adds a rule, "A named port connection can be mixed with a .*
connection to override a port connection to a different expression, or to
leave a port unconnected." (Section 19.11.4)

I agree that for .name, the rule should be explicitly stated, rather than
inferred by not saying anything.  I thought there was an explicit rule, but
I either imagined it, or the rule was only in an early draft or proposal.
The feature was something we added in SV 3.0.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:18 AM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] .name and .*
> 
>  
> 
> If .name or .* is used, and a signal with the same name does 
> not exist in the instantiating module, should that be an 
> error or should the port be left unconnected?
> 
> The LRM is not explicit, which is a problem, but hints that 
> in order to leave the port unconnected, you have to 
> explicitly use a named empty port connection.
> 
> In any case, I would expect the behavior to be the same for 
> both of them.
> 
> However, I tested 3 implementations, and found that only one 
> of them gave errors in both cases, and two of them behaved 
> differently in the two cases.
> 
> Since we see that implementations have differed, this means 
> we need to be explicit.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Shalom
> 
>  
> 
> Shalom Bresticker
> 
> Intel Jerusalem LAD DA
> 
> +972 2 589-6852
> 
> +972 54 721-1033
> 
> I don't represent Intel 
> 
>  
> 
>