[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnucap-devel] prototype name -- bug or feature?

From: al davis
Subject: Re: [Gnucap-devel] prototype name -- bug or feature?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:23:54 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-5-amd64; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; )

On Thursday 17 January 2013, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> to my surprise (in 0.36), this
> gnucap> verilog
> gnucap-verilog>capacitor #(.c(1)) resistor (.p(1),.n(2));
> gnucap-verilog>resistor r (1,2);
> gnucap-verilog>list
> results in
> capacitor #(.c(1)) resistor (.p(1),.n(2));
> capacitor #(.c(1)) r (.p(1),.n(2));
> a similar collision happened while parsing one of my geda
> schematics (also using LANGUAGE::find_proto), which is bad.
> i have no idea what to do, in case this is not a bug...

"find_looking_out" strikes again.

To decide what to do, let's ask a few more questions.

First, lets assume that the following is correct.  (is it?)

gnucap> verilog
gnucap-verilog>bogus r (1,2);
bogus r (1,2);
^ ? bogus: no match

I believe this is correct because there is no type "bogus", and 
gnucap is correctly rejecting it.

Now, try this .....

gnucap> verilog
gnucap-verilog>capacitor #(.c(1)) bogus (.p(1),.n(2));
gnucap-verilog>bogus r (1,2);
capacitor #(.c(1)) bogus (.p(1),.n(2));
capacitor #(.c(1)) r (.p(1),.n(2));

In this case, the capacitor's name is "bogus".  The next line 
declares another instance "r", which is a clone of bogus.

The question ....

Should the line beginning with "bogus" be rejected or not?

After answering that one, we can look at the original.

Does the Verilog spec say what is expected when there are 
duplicate labels?  missing labels?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]