Subject: Re: pragmas
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 08:09:31 PST
Good morning Shalom;
I often think about this same problem, but in the context
of scripts that accept arguments to pass to other tools.
The front script can have no knowledge (so as to be general)
of what are legal options for a given tool. Thus, if you
spell something wrong, "oh well".
I would hope that tools recognize attributes/pragmas as informational
and not issue warnings for unrecognized ones. It is difficult to
teach people that warning have meaning when tools issue them carelessly
and have no way to mark them as not a problem. People only (sometimes)
view errors as something to be dealt with.
Daryl is right that a lint tool could check for attributes not
known, but then you have to have a 'known' list of attributes and
try to keep that up to date.
A more pressing problem as we look at implicit connections, generated
instances, etc. will be answering the question, "is this correct?"
For people who have written code generators based on implicit connection
rules, generation scripts, etc. they have the resultant code to
visually check for errors. By bringing these processes into verilog
it will be harder to 'visually' check that the connections/instances
are indeed correct. Maybe the next generation lint tools job will
be to write out example code showing what is really being done.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 08:10:49 PST