Subject: RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 09:49:36 PST
Yes but the intent is to resolve statically and complain at compile time
not at runtime.
Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&D Novas Software, Inc.http://www.novas.com (408) 467-7893
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Jay Lawrence > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:58 AM > To: dudani@us04.synopsys.com; sv-ac@server.eda.org > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms > > > > Does this mean "semantic cycles" or "syntactic cycles". > Simple cycles in the syntax are not necessarily going to ever > occur semantically. > > Jay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dudani@us04.synopsys.com > [mailto:Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:45 AM > > To: sv-ac@eda.org > > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms > > > > > > 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 - 09:50:19 PST