[sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot Due Dec 17 8AM PST

From: Mark Hartoog <Mark.Hartoog_at_.....>
Date: Sat Dec 15 2007 - 18:22:24 PST
SVDB 1397 _ X __Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1397

SVDB 1809 ___Yes   _ X __No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1809
I think this issue needs more discussion in order to reach consensus.
The V1 proposal 
from Gord has the unfortunate feature that task and function names
triggered imports,
but then the names do not bind to the import they triggered. That seems
wrong to me.

The V2 proposal from Francoise is really going back to what I originally
proposed, 
which is delaying import decision under some circumstances from parsing
to name 
resolution. Some people were strongly opposed to this. I am not sure how
the V2
proposal could be implemented other than by the technique I outlined a
long time 
ago. The V2 proposal as written would apparently require that tools keep
track 
of the lexical context of every task/function name reference and all the
import
statements in order to make name binding decisions. I suppose it may be
ok to 
describe it this way in the LRM, although this may not be the way tools
would 
implement it. 


SVDB 2037 ___Yes   _X__No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2037 
I still have a number of problems with this proposal.
1) The proposal allows local parameters to be created in configurations
without clarifying if a configuration is now a scope or if these
parameters
are somehow being added to the scope the instance is in.
2) I don't think the current proposal makes clear that the overrides
must
be constant expressions.
3) The proposal say that overrides may include "reference to an
identifier 
in the target instance context." I find this confusing. What is the
target
instance context exactly? Can it include references to $unit
identifiers? 
Can it include references to already imported package identifiers in the

context scope or enclosing scopes (like $unit)? I assume it cannot not
trigger
a wild card import.
3) It is not clear if you can make <packageName>::<identifier>
references in 
local parameter or override expressions. If you can, can you do this if
the
package is referenced no place else in the design? Does this then make
the package
part of the design (this can have side effect of executing code invoked
from
the initial value expressions of variables in the package).
4) I do not like allowing hierarchical identifiers in configuration
overrides. 

SVDB 2106 _X__Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/7701.html 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2106

SVDB 1602 _X__Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1602  

SVDB 2097 _X__Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2097 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Sat Dec 15 18:22:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 15 2007 - 18:23:17 PST