[Fwd: Generate proposal]

From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 07:58:59 PST

  • Next message: Vreugdenhil, Gordon: "Generate proposal"

    Hi, all,

            Gord asked me to forward this on to the ETF.

    K

    >From: "Vreugdenhil, Gordon" <gordon_vreugdenhil@mentorg.com>
    >To: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.COM>
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 06:37:39 -0800
    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
    >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    >Subject: [Fwd: Generate proposal]
    >X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:98.4106 C:79.5348 )
    >X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) r p m C
    >X-pstn-addresses: from <gordon_vreugdenhil@mentorg.com> [558/16]
    >
    >Karen, I sent this off to etf, but it hasn't shown up yet.
    >If you could forward it on, I would appreciate it.
    >
    >Thanks!
    >
    >Gord.
    >
    >-------- Original Message --------
    >Subject: Generate proposal
    >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:09:48 -0800
    >From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>
    >To: etf@boyd.com
    >
    >
    >In terms of the generate proposal, I think the overall
    >proposal is a vast improvement over 2001 and I certainly
    >appreciate all the effort that Jason, Steven and Shalom
    >put into it.
    >
    >I do have a few specific issues:
    >
    > 1) the concept of external name in 12.4.3 doesn't seem
    > complete enough. If a declaration does not have a
    > hierarchical name but instead just an implicit external
    > name, is the external name the one to be used in a
    > VCD dump? What about a pli by-name lookup? Does
    > a $display with %m in an unnamed block produce the
    > implicit name? I think that it would be valuable
    > to explicitly define the interactions/requirements
    > with respect to other aspects of the LRM.
    >
    > 2) 13.1 clarifies (by implication) that a configuration
    > cannot create a design root from a module that would
    > not otherwise be a "top module". I disagree with this.
    > If a self recursive model is *defined to be* a design root
    > by a configuration, we should respect that. Forcing
    > a user to create an additional level of hierarchy for
    > the purpose of using a configuration does not make sense
    > to me. The restriction on the *automatic determination*
    > of top modules is absolutely necessary, but in the
    > context of configurations we shouldn't try to second
    > guess the designer.
    >
    > 3) 10.3.5 removes generated functions from the list of
    > constant functions. I don't understand the rationale
    > for this. Since the visibility rules and locality
    > rules guarantee that a function would be elaborated before
    > any possible use as a constant function, I don't see
    > why this is restricted and parameter dependent functions
    > are not.
    >
    >Thanks again for spending the time to get this so far along!
    >
    >Gord.
    >--
    >--------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Gordon Vreugdenhil, Staff Engineer 503-685-0808
    >Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 07:43:32 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.