Marq, See Mantis 1209. I agree it needs to be an error. Note that in IEEE 1800 syntax, the list of array values needs to be enclosed in '{}, with an apostrophe before the curly bracket. Also, 1800 8.13 says, An assignment-like context is as follows: ... - For a parameter with an explicit type declaration: - A parameter value assignment in a module, interface, program, or class - A parameter value override in the instantiation of a module, interface, or program and 5.7 says, Assigning to a fixed-size unpacked array requires that the source and the target both be arrays with the same number of unpacked dimensions, the length of each dimension be the same, and each element be of an equivalent type. Regards, Shalom ________________________________ From: owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Marq Kole Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:45 PM To: verilog-ams Subject: RE: array parameters overrides Shalom, Thanks; from what I read in the IEEE 1800-2005 standard (although module instance parameters are not mentioned in section 19.11, but task and function parameters are) array parameters have to match in size, according to section 12.4. That seems to indicate that in Verilog-AMS LRM 2.3 we should make this an error as well. Cheers, Marq Marq Kole Domain Leader Robust Design Research NXP Semiconductors "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> 17-04-2007 15:26 To "Marq Kole" <marq.kole@nxp.com> "verilog-ams" <verilog-ams@server.eda-stds.org> cc Subject RE: array parameters overrides Classification 1364-2005 does not have array parameters, only 1800-2005. Shalom ________________________________ From: owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Marq Kole Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:24 PM To: verilog-ams Subject: array parameters overrides All, In the Verilog-AMS 2.2 LRM there is nothing specified about overriding array parameters; also in IEEE 1364-2005 nothing is mentioned on this item. Considerthe following Verilog-A code: module map(a, b); inout a, b; electrical a, b; parameter real ap[0:3] = { 0.0, 0.707, 1.0, 1.414 }; genvar i; analog for (i = 0; i <= 3; i = i + 1) $write("ap[%d] = %g\n", i, ap[i]); endmodule // map module test_map(a, b); inout a, b; electrical a, b; // overriding array length == 1 map #(.ap({ 1.2 })) X1 (a, b); // overriding array length == 5 map #(.ap({ 3.1415, -1.01, 2.2u, 1e-9, 10.0 })) X2 (a, b); endmodule // test_map What would happen when the compiler/interpreter encounters the instantiations X1 and X2? I could not find any reference in the standard documents. To prevent ambiguity in the various simulators I suggest that the elaboration is defined, for instance in section 7.2 in the Verilog-AMS LRM and/or in section 12.2.2 in IEEE 1364-2005. Personally, I would expect an error to occur for both instantiations, essentially signalling a mismatch in length between the overriding and overridden arrays. Cheers, Marq Marq Kole Domain Leader Robust Design Research NXP Semiconductors -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Apr 18 01:43:23 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 18 2007 - 01:44:30 PDT