RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

  

I like that idea. This breaks it down and makes it easy to understand.

 

-Duth

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:00 AM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

 

OK, that would bring us to something like this:

 

21. Compiler Directives

21.1 General

21.2 Overview

21.3 Text-processing directives

	21.3.1 `begin_keywords, `end_keywords

	21.3.2 `define, `undef

	21.3.3 `ifdef, `ifndef, `else, `elsif, `endif

	21.3.4 `include

	21.3.5 `line

21.4 Other directives

	21.4.1 `celldefine, `endcelldefine

	21.4.2 `default_nettype

	21.4.3 `pragma

	21.4.4 `resetall

	21.4.5 `timescale

	21.4.6 `unconnected_drive, `nounconnected_drive

	 

How is that ?

 

Thanks,

Shalom

 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:48 AM
	To: Premduth Vidyanandan; Gran, Alex; Bresticker, Shalom;
sv-bc@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

	I would at least like to see them split into text processing
directives, and then all the other semantic altering directives.

	 

	Dave

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Premduth Vidyanandan
	Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:41 PM
	To: Gran, Alex; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

	 

	Hi,

	 

	I would like to vote to brining it back to the alphabetical
order as Shalom suggests.

	 

	Thanks

	Duth

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Gran, Alex
	Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:16 PM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

	 

	I don't have a very strong opinion on this.  So if others do
feel strongly one way or another I will happily back down.

	 

	I tend to like having `define, `include and `ifdef towards the
top because these seem to directives that are more commonly used.  Where
as at least in code I've seen from users `pragma and `begin_keywords are
not as often used, so I'm fine with them being at the bottom of the
section.

	 

	~Alex

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:17 AM
	To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
	Subject: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

	Hi,

	 

	In 1364-1995, compiler directives were ordered in the LRM
alphabetically. (Some directives were described in the same subclause as
another, and then the order went by the first directive in the
subclause.)

	 

	In 1364-2001, the order was almost preserved, except that
somehow `line got into the wrong place.

	 

	1364-2005 messed up by adding `pragma and `begin_keywords at the
end.

	 

	Now P1800 doesn't seem to have any particular order.

	 

	Can we go back to the alphabetical order?

	 

	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 MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.