Re: Proposal for ETF erratum 350

From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Mon Apr 18 2005 - 09:19:49 PDT

  • Next message: Mark Hartoog: "RE: FW: New Mantis Issue #667 for V-1364"

    Hi Steven;

    Since most files are distinguished by suffix rules, rather than command line options,
    why not include a not suggesting suffixes for library map files and configuration files?

    Also it would seem that suggesting command line options for configuration files
    precludes a simulation reading multiple configuration files. Is this saying only one
    configuration block can be compiled (in a tool that is not a separate compilation tool?)

    Maybe instead of an option to specify configuration and library mapping files, one needs
    a suggested option for selecting and using a specific configuration name. That way
    all the configuration files can be in one file and a specific one chosen for a specific
    simulation.

    Does the BTF consider the inclusion of config and library file grammar into the verilog
    files an error? Nobody on the BTF specified this and this was done as part of the
    editorial work on the document. If this is an error, I would support not being bound by
    its ramifications. Also note that there is not much support and use of this feature
    due to raised issues on its definition and implementation.

        Thanks. 

    -- 
     Adam Krolnik
     ZSP Verification Mgr.
     LSI Logic Corp.
     Plano TX. 75074
     Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 08:56:52 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.