| Add Proposal | Add Analysis | Edit Class, Environment, or Release |
| Number | 336
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | Attributes in VPI but not in BNF (26.6.42 vs Appendix A)
|
| State | open
|
| Class | errata-discuss
|
| Arrival-Date | Apr 28 2003
|
| Originator | sharp@cadence.com
|
| Release | 2001b: 26.6.42, Annex A
|
| Environment |
#68 |
| Description |
There are some disagreements between where attributes can be attached in the BNF and what they can be accessed on in the VPI diagram in 26.6.42. There is already an erratum for items missing from the VPI diagram. This is an erratum for items in the VPI diagram but not the BNF. The VPI diagram indicates that attributes can be accessed on prim terms, but the BNF does not allow them on gate and udp terminals, only module instance ports. The VPI diagram also indicates that they can be accessed on path terms, mod paths and tchks, but the BNF does not match. The same applies to table entries for udp tables. What was the intent, and can anyone come up with uses for attributes on these objects? |
| Fix |
|
| Audit-Trail |
From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/336: Attributes in VPI but not in BNF (26.6.42 vs Appendix A) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:44:10 -0400 (EDT) I would suggest in the case of prim terms (gate/UDP terminals), that attributes be allowed in the BNF, matching the VPI. Module instances cannot be distinguished from UDP instances by the parser, so it would simplify handling of the attributes if they were allowed on both. It might not be useful on terminals, but I don't see that it hurts either. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com> To: sharp@cadence.com Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/336: Attributes in VPI but not in BNF (26.6.42 vs Appendix A) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:50:44 +0300 Also param assigns. Note: this erratum is a continuation of errata/68, part 2. Part 1 stays errata/68. Part 3 has become #295 for generated_instantiation and #337 for specify_block. That still leaves genvar_declaration, if it stays. Shalom > There are some disagreements between where attributes can > be attached in the BNF and what they can be accessed on in > the VPI diagram in 26.6.42. There is already an erratum > for items missing from the VPI diagram. This is an erratum > for items in the VPI diagram but not the BNF. > > The VPI diagram indicates that attributes can be accessed > on prim terms, but the BNF does not allow them on gate and > udp terminals, only module instance ports. > > The VPI diagram also indicates that they can be accessed > on path terms, mod paths and tchks, but the BNF does not > match. The same applies to table entries for udp tables. > > What was the intent, and can anyone come up with uses for > attributes on these objects? |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology