RE: compiler directive with formal arguments

Hi, I will get back to you on this Saturday nite or Sunday.
At first glance, though, Mantis 1119 does address this.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-
> ams@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey.Coram
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: Marq Kole
> Cc: verilog-ams
> Subject: Re: compiler directive with formal arguments
> 
> Marq -
> I had a look in mantis and see that Shalom is assigned a few related
> items, but I don't see your question addressed in 1119, 1053, nor
1333.
> 
> I'm not sure what the bit about identifiers means, but one could
> twist it to mean that the formal arguments are not replaced in a
> string, just as
>   parameter real mypar = 1.0;
> 
>   $strobe("mypar = ", mypar);
> 
> doesn't give you 1.0 = 1.0, because the identifier is not replaced
> inside the string.
> 
> -Geoffrey
> 
> 
> 
> Marq Kole wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > At least one simulator has a different interpretation of a compiler
> directive with formal arguments than any of the others (known to me)
do.
> Consider the macro definition:
> >
> > `define UPDATE_XML_ELEMENT(file,param,value,delta) \
> > if (delta) \
> > $fwrite(file, " <instance name=\"%M\">\n  <parameter name=\"%s\"
> value=\"%1.8g\" delta=\"%1.8g\"/>\n </instance>\n", param, value,
> delta);
> >
> > Now I would expect that a call
> >
> > `UPDATE_XML_ELEMENT(update_file, "vth0", Vth, -delta_vth)
> >
> > to be expanded to:
> >
> > if ( -delta_vth) \
> > $fwrite(update_file, " <instance name=\"%M\">\n  <parameter
> name=\"%s\" value=\"%1.8g\" delta=\"%1.8g\"/>\n </instance>\n",
"vth0",
> Vth,  -delta_vth);
> >
> > Instead this tool expands it to:
> >
> > if ( -delta_vth) \
> > $fwrite(update_file, " <instance name=\"%M\">\n  <parameter
> name=\"%s\" Vth=\"%1.8g\"  -delta_vth=\"%1.8g\"/>\n </instance>\n",
> "vth0", Vth,  -delta_vth);
> >
> > So it replaces also the occurrences of "value" and "delta" inside
the
> format string of the $fwrite system task.
> >
> > The weird thing is that the LRM 2.2 standard according to section
> 11.3.1 only states that the scope of formal arguments extends to the
end
> of the line and that a formal argument can be used in the same manner
as
> an identifier. It nowhere exempts the contents of strings from formal
> argument replacement. It is my feeling that this should be added to
the
> text.
> >
> > Then, on the other hand the text in 1364-2005 (section 19.3.1) is
> exactly the same. Should we take the lead here?
> >
> > Marq Kole