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

The LRM is still ambiguous as to whether it should be an error or leave
it unconnected. The original intention may have been clear. The current
text is not.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; Bresticker, Shalom;
sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] .name and .*
> 
> 
> .name and .* do have the same rules for unconnected ports: .name and
.*
> never creates an implicit wire. It's just that you can't override a
> .name port with a named port. It's the named port that will create an
> implicit wire.
> 
> This was sv-bc issue 42-23,24 from SV3.1
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:49 AM
> > To: 'Bresticker, Shalom'; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >