Subject: Re: Thoughts on the .* proposal
From: Michael McNamara (mac@verisity.com)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 09:01:20 PST
Peter Flake writes:
> Stu,
>
> I have taken the time to to review Cliff's proposal. My reason to
> defer is because of implementation issues such as not being able to
> build the port connection data structure until you have found the
> module definition. I agree that .* is a useful feature.
But you can't build it anyway until you look at the target, excepting
building a scaffold that you fill out later when you find the
definition.
With .*, building the scaffold is incredibly simple. :-)
If we also add module prototypes to the language, then in truth you
can do complete checking at the time you parse each module, as you
have already read the prototype.
But even without .*, and without design prototypes (I.E., today) you
can't properly diagnose downward port connections until you parse the
instantiated module's definition, which may have to wait until you
read configurations and libraies.
>
> Peter.
>
> At 06:53 PM 3/23/02 -0800, Stuart Sutherland wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >The e-mail votes to defer the .* port connection proposal to a later
> >version of SystemVerilog leave me a little concerned that some of us have
> >not taken time to carefully review Cliff's .* proposal. In Cliff's e-mail
> >of 17 Mar 2002 (subject: ".* and .name Implicit Port Declaration Proposal
> >- 20020317") he went to a great deal of effort to explain the syntax and
> >benefits of the .* construct. The proposal is very thorough, and leaves
> >nothing to "defer". A couple of minor questions were raised regarding the
> >order of mixed .* and named connections, but those questions can be
> >quickly answered, and do not justify deferring a useful construct for
> >several months.
> >
> >A number of readers of this message have not voted at all. I would like
> >to encourage those who have not yet voted, and those who perhaps voted to
> >defer the construct because they did not have time to read Cliff's three
> >attachments to the aforementioned e-mail, to find the time to review the
> >proposal before the 9:00 AM conference call on the 25th. They document
> >the syntax and advantages very clearly.
> >
> >Stu
> >
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Stuart Sutherland Sutherland HDL Inc.
> >stuart@sutherland-hdl.com 22805 SW 92nd Place
> >phone: 503-692-0898 Tualatin, OR 97062
> >www.sutherland-hdl.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 09:03:33 PST