>From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> >1255: The proposal does not make clear whether UDPs are like gate-level >primitives or modules. Implementors need to tell us which is correct. >Both 'ports' and 'terminals' are used with respect to UDPs. We need to >make the terminology as consistent as possible. UDP connections work like gate terminals. They are scalar nets. The UDP instance can be declared with a drive strength, which will be driven onto the output, unmodified by any intervening continuous assignment. They cannot be connected by name (even though the UDP declaration appears to give them names like module ports). If a multi-bit expression is connected to an input, it will get reduction-ORed to a single bit that gets connected, like a gate terminal. This is unlike a connection to a scalar module port, where the value will get truncated. In every way I can think of that terminals are different from ports, UDP connections work like terminals. Are there any other aspects that you are concerned about that I missed? I wouldn't be surprised if the term "port" was used in the description of the UDP declaration itself. After all, they look a lot like module port declarations, so the term may have sneaked in. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Mon Jan 30 14:51:14 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 14:52:03 PST