Re: [sv-bc] 22.10: what is a bind target variation?

For history, see --

   http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2376.html

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Warmke, Doug
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:30 PM
To: Vreugdenhil, Gordon; Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 22.10: what is a bind target variation?

Well, I admit I wrote that part of the LRM, and I agree with Gordon that
we shouldn't need that restriction.  That will in turn get rid of the
mention of `uselib.

There is one more minor point that hasn't been mentioned regarding bind
targets.  Not *all* targets are valid in all cases.  For example, it is
not allowed to instantiate a module inside an interface.
The bind syntax allows you to do that.  But semantic restrictions
elsewhere in the LRM (in the interfaces clause) prohibit it.
On the other hand, instantiating an interface inside an interface is
currently allowed.  I'm in favor of not cluttering the bind section with
these semantic restrictions that are found elsewhere, and leaving things
as is, with the exception of removing programs from that list of
potential target scopes.

Shalom - Will you enter a Mantis for the various issues you found with
bind?

Thanks,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On Behalf Of Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:51 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] 22.10: what is a bind target variation?
> 
> I think/suspect that this means that is you have
>    module top;
>       child c1();
>       child c2();
>    endmodule
> and then use a configuration to change "c2" to, say, "child2" then the

> restriction means that you can't have a bind to "child" but rather 
> would have to bind to "top.c1".
> 
> If that is indeed a correct interpretation of the LRM, I don't think 
> that I like the restriction and don't really see why the restriction 
> would need to be in the LRM.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> > 22.10 says,
> >
> > "It shall be an error to use noninstance-based binding if the design

> > contains more than one variation of the target module, program, or 
> > interface. This can occur in the presence of configuration library 
> > mapping or nonstandard functionality such as provided by the `uselib

> > directive. In such cases, users must use instance-based binding
syntax
> > to disambiguate between the multiple variations of the target."
> >
> > What is meant by "variation" here?
> >
> > Tools and users need a clear and precise definition in order to know

> > what is legal and what is not.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Shalom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*,
and is
> > believed to be clean.
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > <http://www.mailscanner.info/>**MailScanner*
> > <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*, and is believed to be clean.
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
and is
> > believed to be clean. *
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
> Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.