From: Anders Nordstrom (Anders.Nordstrom.andersn@nt.com)
Date: Fri Oct 23 1998 - 06:21:03 PDT
BAD MSG:
BTF Team,
ontent-Length: 8569
X-Lines: 287
X-Status: $$$$
X-UID: 0000000681
Status: RO
The next BTF Conference call is scheduled for:
Date: Monday October 26, 1998
Time: 9:00 - 11:00 PST (12:00 - 2:00 pm EST)
Phone: 613-763-6338
passcode: 605451#
<p>Agenda
-----
Review Stu's new BE55 proposal (Sept 28 email from Stu)
Review Mac's updated file I/O enhancements, B30 and B34 (Oct 20 email from Mac)
Review Errata proposal BE75 (enclosed)
Review Errata proposal BE76 (enclosed)
Update or discussion on B08 Combinatorial Sentitivity list @*
Built in Constant Functions (August 13 email from Adam and Mac)
Configurations will be discussed on the November 2 conference call after Cliff
has updated
his proposal.
Regards,
Anders
<p><x-html><HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> BE75 </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<BR>
<HR SIZE=5 NOSHADE>
<H2> BE75 - Unspecified abilities on instantiation of modules </H2>
<TABLE BORDER COLS=2 WIDTH="75%" >
<TR><TD>
Section: </TD><TD> Annex A
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Date Submitted: </TD><TD> 980413
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Requestor: </TD><TD> Adam Krolnik & Shalom Bresticker
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Status: </TD><TD> Submitted
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Analyzed by: </TD><TD> TBD
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
<H3> Details </H3>
I don't see anywhere in the BNF how you can specify the drive strength for
a plain module instantiation.
Both XL and VCS accept this, yet it isn't documented anywhere.
What should be done with this? Erratta?
<PRE>
Adam Krolnik
Verification Engineer
Cyrix - NSM.
Richardson TX. 75085
</PRE>
--------------------------------------------------
<PRE>
module top;
wire y,a,b;
// Hey, I get to specify strengths! Useless!!
adam (weak0, strong1) #(5,5) n2(y,a,b);
endmodule
<p>module adam( Y, A, B);
parameter tr = 1;
parameter tf = 1;
parameter m = 1;
input A, B;
output Y;
<p>initial begin
$display("The parameters are %0d %0d %0d.", tr,tf, m);
end
// Here are valid drive strength parameters!!
nor (strong0, strong1) #( tr, tf) G1(Y, A, B);
endmodule
</PRE>
Proposal:
The strength information has no effect on the outputs of a non primitive module.
Unless we want to allow this for consistency with primitives, but no functional
effect, I recommend no changes.
[We could add text to specifically indicate strength specification is not allowed on
module instantiations.]
Adam Krolnik <P>
-------------------------------------------------------------
I reported this to Cadence a year ago,
and they confirmed it is a syntax error which the compiler should catch.
It was scheduled to be fixed in the next release of Verilog-XL,
which was 97B. I cannot confirm that, as I have only the 97A release.
Possibly VCS accepts it only to be compatible with Verilog-XL.
<PRE>
******************************************************************************
Shalom Bresticker email: shalom@msil.sps.mot.com
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Tel #: +972 9 9522268
P.O.B. 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Fax #: +972 9 9522444
http://www.motorola-semi.co.il/
******************************************************************************
</PRE>
<H3> Proposal </H3>
The BNF already does not allow it. <BR>
No changes to LRM proposed.
<HR SIZE=5 NOSHADE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html><x-html><HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> BE76 </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<BR>
<HR SIZE=5 NOSHADE>
<H2> BE76 - Do all nets model strength </H2>
<TABLE BORDER COLS=2 WIDTH="75%" >
<TR><TD>
Section: </TD><TD> 3.7.1
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Date Submitted: </TD><TD> 980812
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Requestor: </TD><TD> Joseph Skudlarek (jskud@analogy.com)
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Status: </TD><TD> Proposal
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
Analyzed by: </TD><TD> Anders Nordstrom
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
<H3> Details </H3>
Per Maq's remarks at the last meeting, I've split up my updates, and am<BR>
sending them to each task force. Here's what I have for the behavioral<BR>
task force. Questions to me.<BR> /Jskud
<PRE>
Proposed Changes For
IEEE 1364
LRM Draft 1 of 29Jun98
Behavioral Task Force
</PRE>
=======================================================================<BR>
Purpose<BR>
=======================================================================<BR>
<p> Propose changes to draft 1 of LRM.<BR>
<p>=======================================================================<BR>
Do All Nets Model Strength?<BR>
=======================================================================<BR>
[NB: submitted to both ASIC and Behavioral Task Forces, since
impacts both section 3 and 7.]
question
Do all nets model strength? There are suggestions that they
don't; eg, page 17 section 3.7.1 --
Logical conflicts from multiple sources on a wire or a tri<BR>
net result in unknown values unless the net is controlled by
logic strength.
proposal
clarify LRM as appropriate, based on discussion<BR>
<p>=======================================================================<BR>
Detailed Edits<BR>
=======================================================================<BR>
<H3> Proposal </H3>
page 17 section 3.7.1 -- replace
Logical conflicts from multiple sources on a wire or a tri net<BR>
result in unknown values unless the net is controlled by logic
strength.
with
Logical conflicts from multiple sources of the same strength on<BR>
a wire or a tri net result in x (unknown) values.
page 22 section 3.7.4 -- add after 1st paragraph
A tri0 net is equivalent to a wire net with a continuous 0 value<BR>
of pull strength driving it. A tri1 net is equivalent to a wire<BR>
net with a continuous 1 value of pull strength driving it.
<HR SIZE=5 NOSHADE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Oct 26 09:38:45 1998
Return-Path: <owner-btf@boyd.com>
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by gw.boyd.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id JAA16869
for btf-list; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:36:23 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: gw.boyd.com: majordomo set sender to owner-btf@boyd.com using -f
Received: from strange.go.cyrix.com (strange.go.cyrix.com [206.103.90.92])
by gw.boyd.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA16865
for <btf@boyd.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:30:07 -0800
Received: from virgo.eng.cyrix.com (iwww [147.5.10.39])
by strange.go.cyrix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA10618;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:02:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ester.eng.cyrix.com by virgo.eng.cyrix.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA19022; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:02:13 -0600
Received: by ester.eng.cyrix.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA00949; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:02:11 -0600
Message-Id: <199810261702.LAA00949@ester.eng.cyrix.com>
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (Solaris OpenStep-1.0-sparc-08/06/96 Version 1.1 )
From: Adam Krolnik <adamk@cyrix.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 98 11:02:06 +0600
To: Tom Fitzpatrick <tfitz@cadence.com>
Subject: Re: BTF - B05: Clarification of Cadence proposal
cc: btf@boyd.com, lawrence@rowlf.Cadence.COM
References: <3.0.5.32.19981022154635.00a95410@rowlf.cadence.com>
<3.0.5.32.19981026102123.0083e290@rowlf.cadence.com>
Sender: owner-btf@boyd.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
<p>Good morning Tom,
You wrote:
The original intent of `library is that it get inherited across files at
"parse-time", just as `timescale and others. In it's basic form, the
directive would be
`library foo
And with this feature, you inherit all the problems timescale and defines
have - Other files inherit these definitions without knowing it. It is
better to implicitly terminate a library definition at the end of a file
rather than look for an explicit command. It is safer (less error prone)
and clearer (What library does this file belong to?)
I will not support `library to allow specifying files/libraries into
a library. Rather I would like a more concrete syntax (config/endconfig...)
<p>I think I understand the 'work' default library. So, answer this question,
"why do we need to explicitly talk about the default library and name it?
Would a user ever need to refer to something from "work" or can it be
implicitly assumed?"
You write, "[W]e consider it critical that a config be completely independent of
file names and physical filesystem paths. " I would say the critical piece
of this is that 'library names and filenames composing the library may be
independently specified.' But I would like to see the ability to
specify both in the interest of simplicity.
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:53:00 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.