Re: [sv-bc] Unconnected ports using .name implicit ports (SVDB 1660??)

From: Don Mills <mills_at_.....>
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 14:27:54 PDT

Even though .name() is not required for unconnected ports, when using the .name connection style, it (the .name()) could still be used if the designer chooses to, right?

Steven Sharp wrote:

From: "Clifford E. Cummings" <cliffc@sunburst-design.com>
    

Shalom pointed out SVDB 1660. I'm not sure if it is clear that 
unconnected ports must be explicitly listed as empty ports (i.e. 
...  .port1(), ... when instantiating a module with an unconnected 
port. What do SV-BC members think?
    

The only time unconnected ports must be explicitly listed as empty
ports is when you are using .* for the port connections.  That is
because .* is a request to connect all ports.

In all other situations, unmentioned ports are unconnected, regardless
of whether you specify the connected ports with .name or .name(signal).

Stu said at today's SV-BC meeting that you and he intended it to
work differently, but neither the LRM text nor anyone else at the
meeting supported that interpretation.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


  

-- 
==========================================================
Don Mills
mills@lcdm-eng.com
www.lcdm-eng.com
==========================================================

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. Received on Tue Oct 16 14:28:31 2007