RE: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] potential command line option

From: Mark Hartoog (Mark.Hartoog@synopsys.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 13:33:33 PDT

  • Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "Config facts & Dangerous Precedent - was: potential command line option"

    Michael McNamara:
    >
    > But finally, I return to the question as to why it would be a
    > Good Idea to include module definitions in the same file as
    > the config. Is there a compelling reason? What use model is
    > uniquely enabled by this?
    >
    > One reason that might come to mind, is that it might be nice
    > to wrap up the entire design in a single file for shipment
    > (tokens.v), including the config; but configs would be
    > completely useless in this mode, as they can only talk about
    > libraries, which fundamentally require parts of the design to
    > be in different different files which likely reside in
    > different directories. Since all of the design is in a single
    > file, it hence is in a single directory, and the set of legal
    > config file syntax gets to be rather boring.
    >

    Configs are cells that can appear in libraries. It is true that it does
    not make sense to have a single (tokens.v) file to dump a design that
    uses configs and libraries, but it would make very good sense to dump a
    single file for each logical library. Since the logical library may
    contains configs, you really want to put the configs in the same file with
    all the other cells from that library. If configs are not allowed in
    source files, then you are forced to dump two files for every logical
    library, one with configs and one with all other kinds of cells (modules,
    udps, interfaces, programs).

    Mark Hartoog
    700 E. Middlefield Road
    Mountain View, CA 94043
    650 584-5404
    markh@synopsys.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 24 2005 - 13:10:42 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.