Re: errata/157: 12.3.1, A.1.4, port -- port_expression optional?

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 19:20:01 PST

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "Re: errata/157: 12.3.1, A.1.4, port -- port_expression optional?"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/157; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
    To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com>
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: errata/157: 12.3.1, A.1.4, port -- port_expression optional?
    Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:17:58 -0800

     Is there any use for a module definition to be able to
     declare unconnectable ports?
     
     Wouldn't it be an error to instantiate
     
         module m1();
         endmodule
     
     with anything other than
     
         m1 inst();
     
     or to instantiate
     
         module m2(,);
         endmodule
     
     with anything other than
     
         m2 inst(,)
     
     ? I don't see this restriction in the standard though. But assuming
     there is such a restriction, what's the use of such ports?
     
     Does anybody have an example where empty port declarations are
     useful?
     
     -- Brad
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 19:20:22 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.