>From: "Gran, Alex" <alex_gran@mentor.com> > I think the answer to your question is "It is implementation >specific" >So I don't know that you'll find an airtight argument from the LRM, >since it looks like the LRM is going out of its way to avoid giving >airtight definitions of what exactly happens at compile time and what >exactly happens at elab time. This is technically true, if you take Brad's question literally, rather than as shorthand for what he really meant. There is nothing requiring a break between compilation and elaboration, or defining what has been computed at that point. He meant "Is it theoretically possible to determine the genblk names before elaborating the generates?" The answer to that was intended to be "Yes". There is no requirement that any tool actually determine the genblk names before that point. But if it determines it later, it still has to get the same answer, which does not depend on whether the generate conditions were true or false. >That being said, I believe I agree with you that a 'false' conditional >generate should still get a name. I agree that this was the intent. 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 Tue May 19 15:17:39 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 19 2009 - 15:17:54 PDT