From: Stephen W. <st...@ic...> - 2008-01-15 18:23:18
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 PR1869719 in Patches brings up the fact that nccoex (what is that?) generates attributes of this form in Verilog that it generates. The patch is a good start, but it parses only a very specific case, and parses it as an unattached (and ignored) attributes. I'm wondering if this attribute format is SystemVerilog-ish, given that at least some other Verilog tools parse it. (Otherwise, Stefan wouldn't be encountering it.) If so, can someone track down the pertinent SystemVerilog babble? We may be able to actually do a proper job of this, if it is documented somewhere. Why not add smarter attribute to Icarus Verilog? Perhaps NC Verilog documentation points us in the right direction. (I'm guessing that nccoex is "NC COEXist" or something like that.) - -- Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep, http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjPoWrPt1Sc2b3ikRAk4zAKCKVYniJHyKN5VuHiyGJ8i9pDl0UACfXgCt /Z7EO5jCiSw+E4DYxOHCytE= =pkS8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Stephen W. <st...@ic...> - 2008-01-15 19:37:16
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Williams wrote: > I'm wondering if this attribute format is SystemVerilog-ish, given > that at least some other Verilog tools parse it. (Otherwise, Stefan > wouldn't be encountering it.) If so, can someone track down the > pertinent SystemVerilog babble? We may be able to actually do a > proper job of this, if it is documented somewhere. Why not add > smarter attribute to Icarus Verilog? I've done a little digging. The "const" keyword in the example appears to indeed be a part of SystemVerilog and is similar to the localparam in behavior. (Except it can be used in a few more places.) My SystemVerilog draft is too old to show this, but I think the attribute assignment may include a type declaration along with the assignment. That would mean that in principle the existing attribute code can be extended in a SV-ish way to make the given code work. I think *this* is what we want to do. - -- Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep, http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjQtvrPt1Sc2b3ikRAikiAKDtIc8sSBecuiUwPlreuUfbbvRtagCbB2Oq +vviAmHOFcU8ZvHLa6d6PXw= =VMNd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Cary R. <cy...@ya...> - 2008-01-15 20:09:31
|
--- Stephen Williams <st...@ic...> wrote: > My SystemVerilog draft is too old to show this, but I think the > attribute assignment may include a type declaration along with the > assignment. That would mean that in principle the existing attribute > code can be extended in a SV-ish way to make the given code work. > I think *this* is what we want to do. I agree we should code to a standard. If this is supported in SV we need to know what the particulars are. Unfortunately it appears the two people most likely to implement it do not have access to the SV standard (1800-2005). >From memory I don't think the SV standard is too expensive, but it uses the 1364-2005 standard as a base document. I only have a copy of 1364-2001, so I'm probably not going to spend the money to get both standards just to enhance iverilog. Cary ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping |
From: Stephen W. <st...@ic...> - 2008-01-15 21:19:48
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Cary R. wrote: > --- Stephen Williams <st...@ic...> wrote: > >> My SystemVerilog draft is too old to show this, but I think the >> attribute assignment may include a type declaration along with the >> assignment. That would mean that in principle the existing attribute >> code can be extended in a SV-ish way to make the given code work. >> I think *this* is what we want to do. > > I agree we should code to a standard. If this is supported in SV we need > to know what the particulars are. Unfortunately it appears the two people > most likely to implement it do not have access to the SV standard > (1800-2005). > >>From memory I don't think the SV standard is too expensive, but it uses > the 1364-2005 standard as a base document. I only have a copy of > 1364-2001, so I'm probably not going to spend the money to get both > standards just to enhance iverilog. I have a copy of IEEE1364-1005 (printed) so I can make proper use of the SystemVerilog standard. These standards are somewhat painful to buy without funding, but I'll look into it. - -- Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep, http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjSN2rPt1Sc2b3ikRAqIXAJ0Q0rSNXxNnfozNqFc2jPWoNDuPbwCfWfLO gTmbW7baMjvyrvzS0sI7D9U= =4vF3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |