Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Verilog::EditFiles misses module declarations where module keyword and module name are on separate lines #1311

Closed
veripoolbot opened this issue May 21, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@veripoolbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@veripoolbot veripoolbot commented May 21, 2018


Author Name: Ben Rosser (@TC01)
Original Redmine Issue: 1311 from https://www.veripool.org

Original Assignee: Wilson Snyder (@wsnyder)


I stumbled onto Verilog::EditFiles recently when looking for a tool that could split up a file and create one file per module. It's very neat!

However, I discovered an issue. I've been using it to post-process the output from a synthesis compiler, which-- for sufficiently long module names-- produces output with the name of the module on a separate line from the "module" keyword, like this:

      R3L1_prlp_policy_DATAWIDTH7_PTRWIDTH4_PREAMBLE3h5_NUM_CHANNELS11(
</code>

The EditFiles command misses this. It does not identify this as a module declaration and will then fail when it sees the next "endmodule", because it thinks it missed a declaration.

Our simulator (Cadence Incisive-- ius) thinks this is valid Verilog code, however, and the file containing module declarations of this form is properly interpreted.

I wrote some hacky Perl code to pre-process the file and clean up module declarations like this, which works. But it'd be nice if the EditFiles command could be fixed to handle this case correctly.

@veripoolbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@veripoolbot veripoolbot commented May 26, 2018


Original Redmine Comment
Author Name: Wilson Snyder (@wsnyder)
Original Date: 2018-05-26T12:02:55Z


Thanks for reporting this.

Attached is a patch to fix this. I think I won't be applying this, as I know some people simply copy and modify this code for themselves, and I'm reluctant to make the code more complicated. If some others see the same problem, I'll reconsider.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.