Re: errata/113: revised generate proposal

From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 01:30:00 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "errata/17: PROPOSAL - 12.1.3 is not clear enough about permitted defparam usage"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/113; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    To: Jason Woolf <jasonw@cadence.com>
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/113: revised generate proposal
    Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:24:04 +0300 (IDT)

     Jason,
     
     I agree.
     
     The use of "generate scope" in the original LRM was more in the sense of
     "lexical scope", i.e., the statements enclosed by the generate-endgenerate
     keywords, but that is not what we mean here.
     
     We now use "generate block" or "generate construct" or "generate region",
     as appropriate, for that usage, if necessary.
     
     So let me suggest the following changes to 113:
     
     1. In 10.3.5, CHANGE
     
     "-- They shall not be declared inside a generate scope."
     
     TO
     
     "-- They shall not be declared inside a generate block (see 12.4)."
     
     
     2. In 12.4.1, in the text after Example 4, CHANGE
     
     "These generate scope names can be used in hierarchical path names"
     
     TO
     
     
     "These names can be used in hierarchical path names"
     
     OR
     
     "These generate block instance names can be used in hierarchical path names"
     
     
     3. In 12.4.3, Example 10, CHANGE
     
     "The following generate scope", wherever it occurs
     
     TO
     
     "The following generate block"
     
     (A quibble with this is that these comments are followed by code such as
     
       if (genblk2) reg a; // top.genblk1.a
       else reg b; // top.genblk1.b
     
     which is really one generate construct with two alternate generate blocks.)
     
     
     Also, CHANGE
     
       // Note that the previous generate construct would have been
       // named genblk3 if it had not been explicitly named g1
     
     TO
     
       // Note that the previous generate block would have been
       // named genblk3 if it had not been explicitly named g1
     
     
     Also, CHANGE
     
         // The following generate scope is implicitly named genblk1
         // as the first nested scope of genblk4
     
     TO
     
         // The following generate block is implicitly named genblk1
         // as the first nested generate block in genblk4
     
     
     OK, now I'll get back to 17.
     
     Shalom
     
     
     
     On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jason Woolf wrote:
     
    > My initial document did not use that term. I suspect this is because the
    > LRM does not define a similar term for module scopes. Since there are only
    > a couple of places with "generate scope" has been used, perhaps the best
    > way to go is to replace each use of "generate scope" with a term that is
    > more consistent with pre-existing language.
    >
    > For example, in section 10.3.5, where it now says,
    >
    > -- They shall not be declared inside a generate scope.
    >
    > we could use "generate block" instead. In the text following Example 4 in
    > section 12.4.1, where it now says,
    >
    > ... These generate scope names can be used in hierarchical path names
    >
    > we could remove "generate scope" from this sentence without diminishing the
    > meaning of the sentence. Or replace it with "indexed".
    >
    > Can you do something similar with issue #17?
    >
    > -Jason
    >
    > > From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    > > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:19:51 +0300 (IDT)
    > >
    > > Hi, Jason,
    > >
    > > I think I need a minor edit of the generate document.
    > >
    > > While working on the proposal for issue #17, which uses the term
    > > "generate scope" in a forward reference, and I wanted to add a
    > > cross-reference to its definition, I found that it does not seem to be
    > > explicitly defined.
    > >
    > > The term is also used in the new 12.4 a number of times. Although when I
    > > reviewed it, I know I found and understand its meaning, I think it would
    > > be good to add a sentence which explicitly defines it, of the sort,
    > > "A <i>generate scope</i> is ...".
    > >
    > > Can you do that?
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 26 2004 - 01:30:18 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.