RE: [sv-ac] default disable iff

Hi Lisa,

 

I am not sure and probably consulting someone from sv-bc would be good.
But how about the following language:

 

Default disable iff shall be declared either within a the task,
function, named block, or generate block locally or

within a module, interface, program, task, function, named block, or
generate block that is higher in the

same branch of the name tree that contains it. the task, function, named
block, or generate block. If it is

declared locally, then the local item shall be used; if not, the search
shall continue upward until an item by

that name is found or until a non-nested module, interface, or program
boundary is encountered.  

More than one default  disable iff item within the same scope is an
error. 

Thanks.

Manisha

 

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Piper
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:40 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] default disable iff

 

Hi John,

To define the scoping rules for 1648 "default disable iff" I planned to
re-use most of the wording from 22.8 scoping rules(shown edited below).
This means that a default disable iff would not apply to nested modules.
Do we want them to apply to nested modules?  

Default disable iff shall be declared either within a the task,
function, named block, or generate block locally or

within a module, interface, program, task, function, named block, or
generate block that is higher in the

same branch of the name tree that contains it. the task, function, named
block, or generate block. If it is

declared locally, then the local item shall be used; if not, the search
shall continue upward until an item by

that name is found or until a module, interface, or program boundary is
encountered.  

More than one default  disable iff item within the same scope is an
error. 

Lisa


-- 
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.