RE: port style parameter declarations

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 12:52:39 PDT


Precedence: bulk

ETF,

So Karen's second example would now be written as follows? --

      module foo #(parameter a = 1, b=2, parameter real c=3.0) (<ports>)

The distinct meanings for those two commas is confusing. Alhough the
grammar is unambiguous, that sure *looks* like a list of three items instead
of a list of two items.

I prefer the original style, in which the semicolon is always a terminator
(like an abbreviated 'endparameter' keyword) --

      module foo #(parameter a = 1, b=2; parameter real c=3.0;) (<ports>)

Instead of special casing parameter_declaration, why not just remove the
superfluous comma from module_parameter_port_list?

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
[mailto:Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:14 PM
To: Karen Pieper
Cc: etf@boyd.com; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM
Subject: Re: port style parameter declarations

Karen,

Look at http://boydtechinc.com/btf/archive/btf_2002/1803.html

That is the resolution of a discussion on this.
But it still has to enter ETF database.

Shalom

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Karen Pieper wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:48:28 -0700
> From: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>
> To: etf@boyd.com
> Cc: Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
> Subject: port style parameter declarations
>
> Precedence: bulk
>
> In looking over my copy of the grammar for parameters declared like ports,
> it looks like a module
> would have to be declared as:
>
> for one parameter declaration:
> module foo(#parameter a=1;) (<ports>)
> // note the trailing ";"^
> // Note also, the first example in section 12.2 is missing the trailing
> semi-colon.
> endmodule;
>
>
> for multiple parameter declarations:
> module foo (#parameter a = 1, b=2;, parameter real c=3.0;) (<ports>)
> // note the ";," ^
> endmodule;
>
>
> I seem to remember some discussion on this, but I can't find an errata
> filed. Is there one, or is this
> resolved in Cliff's letter, or is this a new errata?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 09:24:29 PDT and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.