Re: Generate proposal

From: Krishna Garlapati (krishna@synplicity.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 15:33:25 PST

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "Re: Generate proposal"

    Steven,

        The proposed draft looks good. Many thanks for the task force in
    getting this done.
    I have 2 questions or issues.

    1. I don't understand the reason (or spirit) why the following the
    usage is illegal:

    reg a;
    for(i=1; i < 0; i=i+1) begin : a
    end

    Why is it an error if a block name collides with a declaration name ??

    2. I think the proposed 12.4.3 for generating names is not very
    intuitive. Instead,
    why dont we make the naming of a generated block mandatory ?? I believe
    that
    a designer might find it easy to track generated logic if it is based on
    his names than
    based on a global count and all the associated name collusion avoidance
    issues.

    What do you think ??

    Thanks,

    - Krishna.

    Steven Sharp wrote:

    >The generate sub-task force has a draft of a generate proposal, which I
    >am sending out for feedback, and possible discussion at Monday's ETF meeting.
    >
    >Steven Sharp
    >sharp@cadence.com
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 09 2004 - 15:21:50 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.