>I believe the counts used in these genblk names are fully known by the end of analysis. Yes. > But it's been argued to me that because hierarchical generate block names cannot be determined until elaboration time, then neither can the genblk count. That argument is incorrect, and not supported by the LRM. >I don't agree, but can't find an airtight argument from the LRM. The phrase "... construct that appears textually ..." is suggestive, but isn't proof. Looks pretty conclusive to me. Regardless of whether a generate block is elaborated, it still appears textually in the source, so it is still counted. The only loophole I can see is that the phrase "appears textually" is only specifically used when talking about numbering the first block 1. It is then not repeated later in the sentence when talking about subsequent constructs. It is assumed, as it should be given that it is a continuation of the same sentence. You could try to claim that an un-elaborated block is only counted if it is the first block in the scope. You would have to ignore the fact that it is in a continuation of a sentence about blocks appearing textually, and that such an interpretation would be bizarre. Why would you count un-elaborated blocks only in that one position? >Is the genblk count known by the end of analysis, or not until elaboration? It is known by the end of analysis. Or if you are worried about whether analysis and elaboration have any meaning in the LRM, you can say that it is known from the source text, independent of what steps an implementation uses to compile and elaborate that text. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue May 19 14:50:42 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 19 2009 - 14:51:29 PDT