>What about macros defined by both a compiler directive and also a >command-line switch (possibly with different values)? In the implementations I have access to (including Verilog-XL), the compiler directive is overridden by the command-line switch. So this situation is the same as if only the command-line switch had been used. Having `undefineall turn off the `define but not the switch does not cause any visible complications, because the `define was already ignored in this case. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:12 PM >> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda-stds.org; Feldman, Yulik >> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1090: `undefineall >> >> >> >From: "Feldman, Yulik" <yulik.feldman@intel.com> >> >> >Probably the directive should undefine only the `define macros, >because >> >otherwise the directive won't be too useful (since once the command >> line >> >macros are undefined, there will be no way to define them again). In >> >that case, it may be better to change the wording to refer to `define > >> >explicitly, to avoid ambiguity. >> >> The proposed functionality is based on an existing implementation, >which >> has been out there for many years. It follows Yulik's interpretation, > >> and only undefines macros created with `define. It does not undefine >> macros defined on the command line. I determined this by testing the >> implementation. >> >> The purpose of the directive was to protect files from leftover macros > >> defined in other source files, preventing dependencies between files >> and on compilation order. You may still wish to have macros defined >on >> the command line that affect all files. If `undefineall affected >those >> macros also, then it might become unusable. >> >> Steven Sharp >> sharp@cadence.com > >-- >This message has been scanned for viruses and >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >believed to be clean. > > Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Jul 16 11:29:50 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 11:30:27 PDT