Re: Analog function question

Muranyi, Arpad wrote:

>Thank you all for answering this question for me.
>Unfortunately this was the answer I suspected.
>
>I would like to make a request that this capability
>be added.  A function that is written to process
>arrays is not very useful if the arrays it can take
>as input (or return as output) must be a predetermined
>fixed size.  (This is assuming that Marq's previous
>reply was correct in saying that arrays can be passed
>at all).
>
>What is the procedure for submitting requests?  Can
>I (an observer) enter items in Mantis, or does it
>have to be done by one of the "officials"?
>  
>
I would suggest that you vote for the earliest possible integration with 
SystemVerilog since it has those capabilities already. In particular: 
old style argument and return passing for routines is by value which  is 
particularly inefficient with arrays, and SystemVerilog allows 
pass-by-reference (http://www.eda.org/sv/SystemVerilog_3.1a.pdf - Sec 
10.4.2).

Kev.


>Thanks,
>
>Arpad
>======================================================
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On Behalf Of Marq Kole
>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:28 AM
>To: verilog-ams
>Subject: Re: Analog function question
>
>
>
>Oops, need to correct a small mistake below: 
>...
>...
>  
>
>>>analog function real myFunctionName;
>>>input in1;
>>>real  in1[1:5];    <--------- How would I know the size?
>>>      
>>>
>...
>...
>I mean an argument-controlled size given the fact that you cannot set 
>a parameter value from the outside. So a call: 
>
>  myArrayFunction(myArraySize, myArray); 
>
>Where myArraySize argument carries the length of the myArray argument 
>cannot be handled in current Verilog-AMS. 
>...
>...
>  
>
>>Marq Kole
>>Competence Leader Analog Simulation, Philips ED&T
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>