From: Stefen Boyd (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 03:50:02 PST
The following reply was made to PR enhancement/287; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Stefen Boyd <email@example.com>
To: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
Subject: Re: enhancement/287: `compatibility - backward compatibility
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:43:57 -0800
I think they would have the same rules for appearing in
source as the `timescale (not in a module, just outside).
I'm not sure what else needs to be defined...
Actually, I would want to define some standard attributes
for this purpose in 1364 (1364.1 was the first to introduce
standard attributes, but this would be a good place for them).
I wouldn't think we'd want to let them be used everywhere,
but having attributes to specify the version for modules,
configs and for config_rule_statement would be pretty helpful.
Tools already have to have compatibility modes... this just
gives a standard way to get at them. Note that we would have
to define the location of attributes in the bnf for configs.
At 01:40 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, Shalom Bresticker wrote:
>The following reply was made to PR enhancement/287; it has been noted by
>From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
>To: Stuart Sutherland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: enhancement/287: `compatibility - backward compatibility
>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:14 +0200
> You will have to specify the exact meaning and benefit of these directives.
> > Add a set of backward compatibility compiler directives:
> > `compatibility 1364-1995
> > `compatibility 1364-2001
> > `compatibility default
> > `endcompatibility
Stefen Boyd Boyd Technology, Inc.
www.BoydTechInc.com (408)739-1402 (fax)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 03:51:06 PST
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.