Re: errata/210: A.4.1,A.5.4: Why no anonymous module instances?

From: Stephen Williams (steve@icarus.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 09:50:06 PDT

  • Next message: Kurt Baty: "Re: 1364 issue 140 and negative exponents"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/210; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Stephen Williams <steve@icarus.com>
    To: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/210: A.4.1,A.5.4: Why no anonymous module instances?
    Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:48:50 -0700

    > As has been pointed out from the e-mail thread on this topic, instance
    > names for instantiated modules are valuable in their use of examining the
    > hierarchy below that instantiation.
     
     A module instance creates a new scope, which by definition has a
     name of some sort. However, faced with an "anonymous" instantiation,
     a reasonable compiler writer would simply create a unique name
     automatically. I see no problem here.
     
     This internally generated name can be extracted from the design using
     existing PLI functions. For example, a %m of a $display within the
     anonymous module would print the generated name. The $display can
     implement that functionality simply by asking the VPI for the name
     of its containing scope.
     
     I see no difficulties allowing anonymous module instantiations. I can
     implement it in an afternoon if you need an example.
     --
     Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
     steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep,
     steve at picturel.com and lines to code before I sleep,
     http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep."
     
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 05 2003 - 09:50:41 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.