Subject: Re: [sv-ec] System Include Proposal - Version 2
From: Arturo Salz (Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 10:44:10 PST
Kevin raises a good point. It's useful to have a common convention.
We probably don't want to standardize the filename extension, but
having a convention will be useful to everyone.
And, of course, Annex D will have to refer to the filename explicitly.
Arturo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Cameron x3251" <Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com>
To: <sv-ec@eda.org>; <lawrence@cadence.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] System Include Proposal - Version 2
> From owner-sv-ec@eda.org Thu Mar 13 06:35:26 2003
>
>
> Here is a second shot at the system include proposal.
>
> This proposal extends the Verilog 1364 include mechanism to define an
> installation specific include mechanism. This is provided so that the
> language standard can use the include mechanism to refer to standard
> extensions to the language that are available in source form. Typically
> a vendor will provide a tool installation to the customer, embedded
> within this tool installation or at some other vendor known location,
> the standard language extensions should be found.
>
> Various comments have been made over the last few days which have caused
> me to actually simplify the proposal even more to make it clear and
> unambiguous. A paraphrase of each of the comments and my response is
> given here. Hopefully this will accellerate discussion of the proposal
> in Friday's meeting so we can get it behind us. Following these
> comments a new version of the proposal is given.
>
> Jay
>
....
> -------------------------------
> Comment 3: Kevin Cameron
> -------------------------------
>
> - Use [] instead of <>. This was suggested to separate
> OS-specific includes from tool specific includes.
>
> This proposal only deals with code defined by the language standard. If
> there are OS specific extensions to the language standard in the future
> then they will also live here. Kevin continues to want to share 'C' and
> 'SV' headers after running them through a pre-processor. I would
> suggest you can do this by just defining your own -I directory that you
> place the pre-processed headers in and reference them with the existing
> "file" syntax like any other source in your design.
>
OK, if we're just using <> can we have a convention that SystemVerilog
tool specific standard include files end in ".svh", or something else other
than ".h" ?
Regards,
Kev.
..
>
> As the amount of code grows under <> it may make sense to divide it up
> by subdirectories in the standard itself.
>
> `include <types/list.vh>
> `include <types/semaphore.vh>
> `include <math/trig.vh>
>
>
....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 10:43:18 PST