It should be noted that at the point where a parser is introducing
implicit wires, it cannot flawlessly
distinguish modules, interfaces, checkers, programs and other
"instance-like" syntax. Furthermore,
implicit wires are created for a scope by the lexically first
qualified use. So without the proposal your
first example would be legal if M1 was a module and M2 was an
interface, but not if the lines were
swapped. That seems pointlessly arbitrary.
On 8/16/2011 3:41 PM, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
Hi SV-BC,
SV-AC was requested to review Mantis 3233:
implicit wire declarations should occur in instantiations of
programs/interfaces also.
To do this we need to understand the
rationale of this proposal.
Our understanding is that this feature is
useful to specify module connectivity, e.g.,
M1 m1(a, b);
M2 m2(b, a);
It does not look that this is that useful
for checkers:
C1 c1(a, …);
M1 m1(a, …);
If this is done for uniformity then why
procedural checker instantiation is different? E.g.,
always C1 c1(a, …);
M1 m1(a, …);
Note, however, that the proposed definition
is not going to work in case when there when a checker is
instantiated in another checker:
checker C1(…);
C2 c2(a, …);
C3 c3(a, …);
…
endchecker
because there are no nets in checkers.
Thanks,
Dmitry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material
for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Aug 16 14:51:59 2011