Re: Comment on Issue 211

From: Krishna Garlapati (krishna@synplicity.com)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 15:31:31 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "errata/211: 3.11.2: localparam behavior not clear"

    Precedence: bulk

    If I can add in my 1 cent:

    When implimenting this feature into the Verilog compiler here, I came
    across this question. With a careful reading of the related sections
    on parameters and localparams I thought that the intent of the LRM was
    clear. I think its pretty explicit that the LRM wants to treat parameters
    and localparms differently and hence localparams should not have any impact
    on parameter overrides.

    I don't object to make changes in the LRM, but I think the intent
    is pretty clear.

    Thanks,
    - Krishna.

    Steven Sharp wrote:

    >Precedence: bulk
    >
    >There are essentially two questions to be answered for this issue.
    >
    >1. Is it the consensus of the ETF that the intent of the LRM was for
    > localparams to be ignored/skipped when doing parameter override by
    > position?
    >
    >2. Does the existing LRM text need to be changed to make the intent
    > clearer?
    >
    >Steven Sharp
    >sharp@cadence.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 

    -- 
- Krishna Garlapati, Synplicity Inc. (408)215-6152

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 15:35:08 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.