Subject: Re: 1364.1 pragmas
From: David Bishop (dbishop@server.vhdl.org)
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 12:13:06 PDT
Please use the address you subscribed under in
your "Reply_to" to avoid hitting the SPAM filter.
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
Reply-To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
Subject: Re: 1364.1 pragmas
To: sharp@cadence.com
Cc: vlog-synth@server.eda.org, etf@boyd.com
>Well that may be fine for tools which use PLI, i.e., simulators,
>but all the other tools in the world don't use PLI.
If PLI were complete, any other tool could be implemented as a PLI app.
One of its uses is as a platform for building other tools, which are not
necessarily related to simulation. It effectively creates a front-end
parser and elaborator for Verilog, based on any compliant simulator.
The point is: how can the standard specify what information a tool is
supposed to be able to extract from attributes?
One answer is: by specifying a complete interface for extracting that
information, to act as an example.
The PLI provides just such an interface. I always assumed it would be
interpreted as the specification for what information attributes provide,
even in tools that don't use that particular interface to do it. Without
that assumption to provide a specification of how attributes are supposed
to work, attributes don't provide significant benefit over directives in
comments. I wouldn't have worked to keep them in the standard.
Obviously, others did not interpret the standard the same way. I think
that my interpretation of the standard provides a well-defined framework
for how attributes are supposed to behave, independent of specific tools.
I propose that we make this interpretation official, before too many
other interpretations get made and render attributes as inconsistent as
directives in comments.
Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Sep 02 2002 - 12:21:40 PDT