Subject: Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 08:08:29 PST
Good morning all;
John wrote:
I have not yet found any place in the LRM that mentions
acyclicity requirements for defined forms. Without
acyclicity, simple ill-founded forms are possible, e.g.
seq s = (t;x);
seq t = (s;y);
Is it intended that all cyclic syntactic dependencies be
disallowed?
Surrendra wrote:
All acyclic definitions are illegal. LRM should be updated to clearly state this
restriction.
In addition an example should be provided for those not currently using terms
such as 'acyclicity'...
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 08:09:23 PST