Subject: Re: [sv-ac] nested implication example
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 10:34:58 PST
Hi Erich;
>since the notion of 'next_event' as you defined it above is fairly common.
I would second this thought. I have been trying to convert some assertions
into SVA and this operation comes up often.
Options:
1. ( !e*[0:inf]; e) 10 + 2e
2. (first_match ([0:inf]; $rose(e))) 29 + e
Option 1 is not the best because one has to duplicate 'e' - if its long, you
have the possiblity of different expressions.
Options is long to type - longer than the throughout construct or its equivalent
intersect form.
Yes, we could leave it written as a boolean
bool next_event(e) = (!e*[0:inf]; e);
But if this is a common idea, then codifying it presents to all the usefulness.
Thanks.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 10:37:27 PST