[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] my notes from the face-to-face

If that is what you understood, then the proposal is not clear enough.
I'll add your comment to a bugnote.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Korchemny, Dmitry 
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; 'sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org'
> Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org'
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] my notes from the face-to-face
> 
> This is the behavior I want. But as far as I understood from 
> your proposal, the default a = 1'b1 will take precedence over top.a.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:16 PM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org'
> Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org'
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] my notes from the face-to-face
> 
> In what case is your confusion?
> 
> If you write
> 
> module mod1(input a=1'b1);
> endmodule
> 
> module top;
> logic a;
> mod mod1 (.*) ;
> endmodule
> 
> then top.a will be connected to mod1.a.
> 
> If top.a does not exist, then 1'b1 will be connected to 
> mod1.a (in our proposal).
> 
> If top.a exists, but it is not type equivalent to mod1.a, it 
> is an error.
> 
> SV-BC is currently discussing how .name and .* should work 
> with defaults.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Korchemny, Dmitry
> > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:55 AM
> > To: Bresticker, Shalom; john.havlicek@freescale.com; 
> > sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> > Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] my notes from the face-to-face
> > 
> > Hi Shalom
> > 
> > 
> > > - Does .* binding win over default actual argument if the formal
> > >   name matches in the instantiation context?
> > 
> > .* with defaults does not exist in the LRM yet. Mantis 1619
> > (SV-BC) will add defaults for module input ports only. The 
> question is 
> > what happens when there is not a match for the formal name in the 
> > instantiation context. Mantis 1619 proposes currently to take the 
> > default. But isn't it clear that if there is a match, that 
> you connect 
> > it to the instantiation context? That is the whole point of .*.
> > 
> > [Korchemny, Dmitry] I think that default should have a smaller 
> > precedence. But we have to be consistent in the definitions 
> of module 
> > and checker. Have SV-BC already discussed this issue?
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.