Hi Don, Two questions for you. First, in your mantis proposal is there any difference in the config where you use a localparam and parameter. I'm trying to understand why you are emphasizing the use of localparam in this case. Localparam: config cfgl; localparam S = 24 design rtlLib.top; instance top.a1 #(.W(S)); instance top.a2 #(.W(S)); endconfig With cfg1 configuring module top.a1, the $display in adder will print: PRINTS: Name = a1, W=24, D = 512 PRINTS: Name = a2, W=24, D = 512 Parameter: config cfgl; parameter S = 24 design rtlLib.top; instance top.a1 #(.W(S)); instance top.a2 #(.W(S)); endconfig With cfg1 configuring module top.a1, the $display in adder will print: PRINTS: Name = a1, W=24, D = 512 PRINTS: Name = a2, W=24, D = 512 Second, you gave examples of explicit .name() default "reset" conditions basically for overriding the instantiations back to their default values but you didn't give an example of implicit .name. What happens what I do this for example? config cfgl; design rtlLib.top; instance top.a1 #(.NAME("A1"), .W(2), .D(16384) ); instance top.a2 #(.NAME("A2")); instance top.a3 #(.NAME("A3"), .W(16), .D() ); instance top.a4 #(.NAME, .W, .D ); <-- These are all implicit .name. What happens here? Is this the same as .name() or does it do nothing? endconfig -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Don Mills Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:52 PM To: sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: [sv-bc] setting parameters in configurations I have opened a mantis item on this subject #2037 and uploaded my first draft of the new section. For those of you who have looked at my preliminary draft earlier today - you will find the uploaded draft to be much more verbose. -- ========================================================== Don Mills mills@lcdm-eng.com www.lcdm-eng.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.Received on Fri Sep 14 10:35:20 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:35:39 PDT