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

This is actually a problem with the 1364 LRM. It never defines the
semantics for omitting an ordered or named port expression from a list
of ports. Only where says it that .name() port with no expression leaves
the port unconnected.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:48 AM
> To: Rich, Dave; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >