From: James A. Markevitch (jam@magic.com)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 10:06:02 PST
Here are some more comments on the Draft 4 BNF.
Section A.2.1.2
Two of the clauses in the output_declaration definition appear to be
unnecessary. They are:
| output [ reg ] [ signed ] [ range ] [ attribute_instance ]
list_of_port_identifiers ;
| output [ output_reg_type ] [ signed ] [ range ] [ attribute_instance ]
list_of_port_identifiers ;
The other three clauses appear to cover all cases.
Section A.1.4
The definition of port_expression is really redundant. The first clause
requires 1 port_reference and the second clause requires 0 or more
port_reference's.
Is it a simple case that the curly braces should be in bold?
Sections A.2.1.3, A.2.3, and A.2.4
The definition of net_declaration supports assignments, but does not
support statements which include some variables which are assigned and
some of which are not. For example,
wire a, b, c = 3, d; // Not supported
Is this intentional? Note that this is consistent with the 1995 standard.
A.2.1.3
The definition of net_declaration implies that a trireg net can be
assigned a value in the declaration statement. Is this intentional?
I don't think this is the case, but if so, then it has issues related to
drive strength.
James Markevitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:10 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.