Subject: Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms
From: dudani@us04.synopsys.com
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 08:44:52 PST
John is correct. All "cyclic_definitions" are disallowed. LRM needs to
state this restriction.
Surrendra
At 10:23 AM 2/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Adam:
>
>The example I gave has a cyclic syntactic dependency.
>s depends syntactically on t and x, while t depends syntactically
>on s and y. If you form a directed graph from the relation
>"depends syntactically on", that graph will have a cycle for these
>definitions.
>
>I think Surrendra meant to say that all _cyclic_ definitions are
>illegal.
>
>Best regards,
>
>John Havlicek
>
> > 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
> >
> >
**********************************************
Surrendra A. Dudani
Synopsys, Inc.
377 Simarano Drive
Suite 300
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel: 508-263-8072
Fax: 508-263-8123
email: dudani@synopsys.com
**********************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 08:45:22 PST