Re: your implicit port connection proposal

Subject: Re: your implicit port connection proposal
From: Peter Flake (flake@co-design.com)
Date: Tue Nov 06 2001 - 03:01:50 PST

Next message: Kevin Cameron -Linux x3251: "External Module Definitions"
Previous message: Dave Kelf: "Verilog++ 11th Committee Meeting Minutes"
In reply to: Stefen Boyd: "your implicit port connection proposal"
Reply: Peter Flake: "Re: your implicit port connection proposal"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Stefen,

If there is an implicit net at the higher level, should it not connect to a net of the same name at the lower level, or should there be an error? Either of these behaviors seems strange, so I would allow implicit nets.

Peter.

At 11:38 AM 11/5/01 -0800, Stefen Boyd wrote:

Cliff,

Given some thought about .* it would seem the most
useful to me when adding new blocks to an existing
design... a new design would best be done with
interfaces. But I'm wondering how it would handle
scalar nets that are implicitly declared due to
connections to other instances. Do .* nets have
to be declared explicitly or can they be implicit?

Stefen

--------------------
Stefen Boyd                   Boyd Technology, Inc.
stefen@BoydTechInc.com        (408)739-BOYD
www.BoydTechInc.com           (408)739-1402 (fax)

Next message: Kevin Cameron -Linux x3251: "External Module Definitions"
Previous message: Dave Kelf: "Verilog++ 11th Committee Meeting Minutes"
In reply to: Stefen Boyd: "your implicit port connection proposal"
Reply: Peter Flake: "Re: your implicit port connection proposal"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 06 2001 - 05:30:23 PST