R
romi
Guest
Hi,
The 1800-2005 LRM (p.299) says that if multiple bind statements are
present for a given scope, the order of those statements is not
important. This would seem to prevent bind instances from
hierarchically referencing nets in other bind instances.
bind target_mod bind_mod0 bind_inst0 ();
bind target_mod bind_mod1 bind_inst1 (.some_port(bind_inst0.some_net);
Above, I'm showing instantiation of bind_inst1 trying to make a
relative hierarchical reference to a net in bind_inst0. However, this
is illegal (I think since it doesn't work in my tool).
Does anyone know why the LRM didn't just make the bind order important
so this type of referencing would work? The order of other
instantiations is important, why not bind instantiations?
Thanks!
The 1800-2005 LRM (p.299) says that if multiple bind statements are
present for a given scope, the order of those statements is not
important. This would seem to prevent bind instances from
hierarchically referencing nets in other bind instances.
bind target_mod bind_mod0 bind_inst0 ();
bind target_mod bind_mod1 bind_inst1 (.some_port(bind_inst0.some_net);
Above, I'm showing instantiation of bind_inst1 trying to make a
relative hierarchical reference to a net in bind_inst0. However, this
is illegal (I think since it doesn't work in my tool).
Does anyone know why the LRM didn't just make the bind order important
so this type of referencing would work? The order of other
instantiations is important, why not bind instantiations?
Thanks!