Describe the new .net behavior.

vvp/README.txt

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 /*
  * Copyright (c) 2001 Stephen Williams (steve@icarus.com)
  *
- *  $Id: README.txt,v 1.34 2001/07/04 22:59:04 steve Exp $
+ *  $Id: README.txt,v 1.35 2001/08/10 04:31:27 steve Exp $
  */
 
 VVP SIMULATION ENGINE
@@ -246,50 +246,64 @@ exactly the same as the .var statement:
 	<label> .net   "name", <msb>, <lsb>, <symbols_list>;
 	<label> .net/s "name", <msb>, <lsb>, <symbols_list>;
 
-A .net statement creates a functor for each bit of the vector in
+Like a .var statement, the .net statement creates a VPI object with
-exactly the same way that a .var creates functors. The truth table for
+the basename and dimensions given as parameters, but unlike a .var
-a .net functor is the same, as well. The net has an output that may be
+statement, it creates no functors. The symbol list is a list of
-connected to something, but need not. The 0 (zero) input of each bit
+functors that feed into each bit of the vector, and the vpiHandle
-functor is the normal input, and is connected to the output of a
+holds references to those functors that are fed it.
-functor or another net.
 
-The second functor input is a force net. This connects to an
+The <label> is required and is used to locate the net object that is
-expression that is announced by a force statement of some sort. The
+represents. This label does not map to a functor, so only references
-third input is the only input settable by behavioral code, it selects
+that know they want access .nets are able to locate the symbol. In
-between the normal input and the force input. These inputs work
+particular, this includes behavioral %load and %wait instructions. The
-exactly the same as those for the .var functors.
+references to net and reg objects are done through the .net label
+instead of a general functor symbol. The instruction stores the
+functor pointer, though.
 
-Since .var items are written by behavioral code, there is no worry
+X A .net statement creates a functor for each bit of the vector in
-about how to connect their inputs. You don't. But .net items do have
+X exactly the same way that a .var creates functors. The truth table for
-inputs that need to be connected to the outputs of other
+X a .net functor is the same, as well. The net has an output that may be
-functors. Nets are also complicated by the fact that they come in
+X connected to something, but need not. The 0 (zero) input of each bit
-vectors, so the inputs of all the functors in the array need to be
+X functor is the normal input, and is connected to the output of a
-connected. Fortunately, there is only one input per .net functor that
+X functor or another net.
-can be connected, and that is input 0.
 
-The force input and selector input are manipulated exactly the same
+X The second functor input is a force net. This connects to an
-way as with .var force and selector inputs, so there is no need for a
+X expression that is announced by a force statement of some sort. The
-syntax to handle them.
+X third input is the only input settable by behavioral code, it selects
+X between the normal input and the force input. These inputs work
+X exactly the same as those for the .var functors.
 
-Since there is exactly one input per bit in the vector, it is easy
+X Since .var items are written by behavioral code, there is no worry
-enough to just list the vvp_ipoint_t symbols in order. Each symbol
+X about how to connect their inputs. You don't. But .net items do have
-references a functor, and connects the corresponding .net input to the
+X inputs that need to be connected to the outputs of other
-output of that functor, as if the .net is an <N> bit wide functor. The
+X functors. Nets are also complicated by the fact that they come in
-bits of the vector are connected least-significant-bit first. It is
+X vectors, so the inputs of all the functors in the array need to be
-legal to leave a bit unconnected. To do that, simply leave the
+X connected. Fortunately, there is only one input per .net functor that
-position for that bit blank. Bits of .nets are initialized to
+X can be connected, and that is input 0.
-z. Unconnected bits keep the value z throughout the simulation.
 
-The special input symbols "C<0>", "C<1>", "C<x>" and "C<z>" and magic
+X The force input and selector input are manipulated exactly the same
-symbols that set the net to a constant value instead of accepting an
+X way as with .var force and selector inputs, so there is no need for a
-input from a functor. This can happen, for example, when a wire is
+X syntax to handle them.
-declared like so:
 
-	wire foo = 1'b1;
+X Since there is exactly one input per bit in the vector, it is easy
+X enough to just list the vvp_ipoint_t symbols in order. Each symbol
+X references a functor, and connects the corresponding .net input to the
+X output of that functor, as if the .net is an <N> bit wide functor. The
+X bits of the vector are connected least-significant-bit first. It is
+X legal to leave a bit unconnected. To do that, simply leave the
+X position for that bit blank. Bits of .nets are initialized to
+X z. Unconnected bits keep the value z throughout the simulation.
 
-This prevents any real functor being created and connected, and
+X The special input symbols "C<0>", "C<1>", "C<x>" and "C<z>" and magic
-instead leaves the input unconnected and initializes the wire with the
+X symbols that set the net to a constant value instead of accepting an
-specified value, instead of the default z.
+X input from a functor. This can happen, for example, when a wire is
+X declared like so:
+
+X 	wire foo = 1'b1;
+
+X This prevents any real functor being created and connected, and
+X instead leaves the input unconnected and initializes the wire with the
+X specified value, instead of the default z.
 
 MEMORY STATEMENTS: