Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sv-ac] check: How will we do this?]
From: Prakash Narain (prakash@realintent.com)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 11:26:47 PST
It may also be reasonable to propose that for clearly identifiable
sequential
blocks, the scheduling should be allow evaluation of the first term
immediately.
Best Regards,
Prakash
Adam Krolnik wrote:
>
>
> Good morning Prakash;
>
>
> After considerations for and against the check statement both by you and
> myself, here is my proposal and justification.
>
>
> I propose that the check statement be removed for the following reasons:
>
> 1. The functionality is very limited.
> a) You are only allowed a boolean expression argument
> b) Its use is limited to clocked RTL (design) procedural blocks
> [It has uses in the testbench, but still is limiting.]
> 2. I would prefer to have a unified "assert" statement with full
> support
> for properties and sequences to be used in all contexts.
> 3. It is easier to extend or add functionality than to remove it.
> We can work on this functionality for the next SystemVerilog
> release.
>
>
> In place of the check statement, one can always use
>
> if (! boolean_expr) $error();
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Adam Krolnik
> Verification Mgr.
> LSI Logic Corp.
> Plano TX. 75074
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 11:27:04 PST