RE: [sv-bc] potential command line option

From: Mark Hartoog (Mark.Hartoog@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 10:17:11 PDT

  • Next message: Randy Misustin: "Re: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] potential command line option"

    In the section on Hierarchical configurations the 1364-2001/1364-2005
    LRMs say you can specify the following mapping:

    instance top.a1.foo use lib1.foo:config;
    // bind to the config foo in library lib1

    This clearly implies that a config can be an "cell" in a library.

    The BNF only allows configs in library mapping files. How would
    you get the configs into a libraries? Would you name the library mapping
    file in the wild card patterns so that its contents would be mapped
    into the library also?

    In the section on libraries (13.2.1 in 1364-2001) it says "When parsing
    a source description file (or files), the parser shall first read the
    library mapping information from a pre-defined file prior to reading
    any source files." This implies that library mapping files are NOT
    source files.

    In the section on "Mapping source files to libraries" (13.2.3 in
    1364-2001) it says "For each cell definition encountered during
    parsing/compiling, the name of the source file being parsed is
    compared to the file path specifications of the library declarations
    in all of the library map files being used. The cell is mapped into
    the library whose file path specification matches the source file name."

    This implies that library mapping only applies to source files, and
    library map files are NOT source files. I don't see any way to get
    a configuration into a library if configurations are not allowed
    in some kind of source file.

    I think the 1364-2001 LRM is inconsistent about where configuration may
    appear. Either it was an error in the BNF that configurations can not
    appear in source files, or it was an error that configurations can be
    cells that are in libraries.

    I think we should allow configurations in libraries, so I think we should
    say it was an error in the BNF. I don't like the idea of creating two
    classes of source files, normal verilog and config, but I suppose I can
    live with that, if we have too.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-btf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-btf@boyd.com] On
    > Behalf Of Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:18 PM
    > To: Steven Sharp
    > Cc: btf@boyd.com; etf@boyd.com
    > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] potential command line option
    >
    > Just to be fair, I should point out that IEEE rules state
    > that where the standard is ambiguous, an interpretation needs
    > to allow the most liberal interpretation. This is because the
    > content of a standard is determined by what is written there,
    > not by what was intended to be written there, and here there
    > was not even an intent at that time.
    >
    > Shalom
    >
    >
    > > It is not clear that this would be a change to what is specified in
    > > 1364-2001. The text doesn't state where configs can
    > appear, and the
    > > syntax boxes and BNF clearly specify that they cannot appear in
    > > Verilog source files. This proposal could be viewed as an official
    > > interpretation with a corresponding clarification in the
    > LRM. There
    > > has been no prior request for interpretation that would
    > conflict with
    > > this. Supporting both 1364-2001 and 1364-2005 would not
    > require different behavior.
    >
    > --
    > Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com Tel:
    > +972 9 9522268
    > Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax:
    > +972 9 9522890
    > POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell:
    > +972 50 5441478
    >
    > [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Confidential
    > Proprietary
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 09:54:20 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.