Re: [sv-ec] Missing BNF for parameterized virtual interfaces

Dave,

 

I'm not saying the syntax is wrong, but why not 

 

          virtual ifc#(32).mp v;

 

instead of

 

           virtual ifc.mp#(32) v;

         

?  Also, the dot before modport_identifier should be red.

 

-- Brad

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:25 PM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] Missing BNF for parameterized virtual interfaces

 

Mantis issue http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001330
has been entered

 

I believe this was just an oversight, but there's no BNF to support the
specification of actual parameters of a virtual interface needed to
match the actual parameters in an interface instance. 

Mantis issue http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001330
has been entered

 

This proposal assumes the BNF in mantis 892 is also approved

 

 

David Rich
Verification Technologist
Design Verification & Test Division
Mentor Graphics Corporation
dave_rich@mentor.com
Office:   408 487-7206
Cell:     510 589-2625