Subject: RE: Thoughts on OOMRs
From: Jonathan Sanders (jons@cadence.com)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 01:39:47 PST
Ian,
A bit confused on this one. Both module A and module B have disciplines
defined (both electrical). There should be no need to do discipline resolution
although the real question here is can you insert a connect module between
behavioral code? I think the answer should be no. If I modify your testcase
by changing the discipline of module A to be logic then should this be allowed?
Where does the CM go? As per my response to Kevin the use of OOMRs
with discipline resolution (and the issue I raised) more go to structure
not behavioral
code. Am I missing your issue?
Jon
module top;
A a();
B b();
endmodule
module A;
logic e; // DOES THIS FORCE A CM? AND WHERE?
endmodule
module B;
electrical z;
analog V(z) <+ V(top.A.e); // no ambiguity
endmodule
At 09:05 AM 2/7/01, Ian Wilson wrote:
>The need for a declaration of the net referenced in an OOMR
>appears to be purely an artefact of the hierarchical approach
>to discipline assignment.
>
>There doesn't seem to be an inherent need for a declaration:
>
>module top;
> A a();
> B b();
>endmodule
>
>module A;
> electrical e;
>endmodule
>
>module B;
> electrical z;
> analog V(z) <+ V(top.A.e); // no ambiguity
>endmodule
***********************************************************
Jonathan L. Sanders
Product Engineering Director
Mixed Signal and Physical Verification Solutions
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
555 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose, CA. 95134
INTERNET:jons@cadence.com Tel: (408) 428-5654 Fax : (408) 944-7265
***********************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 01:46:45 PST