errata/227: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and internal block item declarations

From: Stefen Boyd (stefen@boyd.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 11:50:01 PST

  • Next message: Stefen Boyd: "Minutes posted for Dec 1 meeting"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/227; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Stefen Boyd <stefen@boyd.com>
    To: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and internal block
      item declarations
    Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:49:59 -0800

     forwarded from "Jayaram Bhasker" <JBhasker@eSilicon.com>:
     
    >Just a suggestion:
    >
    > >> be ANSI C-like, or they can be the old type. If ANSI C-like, then they
    >
    >There should be a better name than "ANSI C-like" since it is not. How about
    >"port inline declaration style"? The "old type" can be called "port list
    >style".
    >
    >- bhasker
    >
    >------
    >J. Bhasker, eSilicon Corp
    >1605 N. Cedar Crest Blvd, Ste 615, Allentown, PA 18104
    >jbhasker@esilicon.com, 610.439.6831, 610.770.9634(fax)
    >
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: James A. Markevitch [mailto:jam@magic.com]
    >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:10 PM
    >To: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    >Subject: errata/227: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and
    >internal block item declarations
    >
    >
    >The following reply was made to PR errata/227; it has been noted by GNATS.
    >
    >From: "James A. Markevitch" <jam@magic.com>
    >To: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    >Cc:
    >Subject: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and internal block item
    >declarations
    >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:10:50 -0800 (PST)
    >
    > The comments below are intended to discuss legal syntax. Once that has
    > been generally agreed upon, I will write the proposed changes to the text.
    >
    > > If a task port is declared in a task_port_list, is it legal
    > > to also declare it in a block item declaration within the body
    > > of the task?
    >
    > It is illegal.
    >
    > > In 12.3.4, in the context of lists of module port declarations,
    > > the LRM says --
    > >
    > > "Each declared port provides the complete information about
    > > the port. The port s direction, width, net, or variable type,
    > > and whether the port is signed or unsigned is completely
    > > described."
    > >
    > > so it should be an illegal redeclaration of such a port to declare
    > > it again in a block item declaration. (Is that a correct interpretation?)
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > Does that also apply to lists of function ports and task ports?
    > > If so, where is that stated in the standard? If not, what is
    > > the motivation for the difference?
    >
    > Yes, task/function port declarations should have the same rules applied
    > to them as module port declarations. In particular, they can either
    > be ANSI C-like, or they can be the old type. If ANSI C-like, then they
    > cannot be redeclared in a block item declaration.
    >
    > > -- Brad
    >
    > James Markevitch
     
     --------------------
     Stefen Boyd Boyd Technology, Inc.
     stefen@BoydTechInc.com (360)666-6957
     www.BoydTechInc.com
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 13:33:26 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.