Re: [sv-bc] Proposal for compatibility problems with mixed Verilog/SystemVerilog code

Mark -
I agree that the uncontrolled order of file parsing along with
the persistence of the compiler directive is a potential pitfall.

However, I don't like the use of file extensions for this.
Unless you have a proliferation of extensions, you can't
differentiate between versions (1364-1995 and -2001).
You'd need a different extension for Verilog-AMS as well
as one for P1800. Also, some old Verilog-A files use .h
for headers; what keywords are assumed for that?

-Geoffrey

Mark Hartoog wrote:
>
> > File extension rules would require you to rename every one of your files.
>
> This is not true. Most people are using one or two extensions for
> their 1364-2001 files. You just make those extensions the 1364-2001
> extensions and use a different extension for new P1800 files
> you create. You may need to change a few files extensions, but
> you should not need to change all of them.
>
> > Mark Hartoog wrote:
> >
> > > I am not thrilled with this proposal. This is trying to solve a real
> > > problem, but this is the most awkward way of solving this problem
> > > for users.
> > >
> > > If you have -v and -y libraries, you will need to put the `keywords
> > > on every single library file, since you have no control over what
> > > order these files are read.
[snip]
Received on Tue Nov 30 09:29:50 2004