Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: Proposal for statement_or_null production question for pass actionblock
From: Harry Foster (harry@verplex.com)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 09:39:03 PST
My concern is that:
action_block ::= [ statement ] [ else statement_or_null ]
has both an optional [ statement ] and optional [ else statement_or_null ]
Since both are optional, both could be omitted and we
would not have the ending semicolon for a simple assertion
like:
assert (a==b);
Best regards,
-Harry
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Foster Tel 972-423-3186
Chief Architect Cell 408-234-7637
Verplex Systems, Inc. mailto:harry@verplex.com
840 Shenandoah Dr. www.verplex.com
Plano, TX 75023 www.verifiableRTL.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]On
Behalf Of Arturo Salz
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:26 AM
To: harry@verplex.com
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] RE: Proposal for statement_or_null production
question for pass actionblock
Harry,
Both BNF's are the same. Both make the following legal:
assert (a&b|c) else $error("error");
The difference, is that Adam's BNF doesn't inclucde the pass
clause, and mine does.
Arturo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Foster" <harry@verplex.com>
To: <harry@verplex.com>; "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM>; "Adam
Krolnik" <krolnik@lsil.com>
Cc: <sv-ac@eda.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:33 AM
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Proposal for statement_or_null production question for
pass actionblock
This BNF will not work either. Adam's seems to work best.
Best regards,
-Harry
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Foster Tel 972-423-3186
Chief Architect Cell 408-234-7637
Verplex Systems, Inc. mailto:harry@verplex.com
840 Shenandoah Dr. www.verplex.com
Plano, TX 75023 www.verifiableRTL.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Foster [mailto:harry@verplex.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Arturo Salz; Adam Krolnik
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for statement_or_null production question for pass
actionblock
Hi Arturo,
It seems to me that the BNF would have to be something like:
action_block ::= [ statement ] [ else statement ] ';'
Although I'm not a BNF expert.
-Harry
Best regards,
-Harry
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Foster Tel 972-423-3186
Chief Architect Cell 408-234-7637
Verplex Systems, Inc. mailto:harry@verplex.com
840 Shenandoah Dr. www.verplex.com
Plano, TX 75023 www.verifiableRTL.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:13 AM
To: Adam Krolnik
Cc: harry@verplex.com; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for statement_or_null production question for pass
actionblock
Adam,
I believe the change would be to make the pas statement
optional, as in:
action_block ::= [ statement ] [ else statement_or_null ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Krolnik" <krolnik@lsil.com>
To: "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM>
Cc: <harry@verplex.com>; <sv-ac@eda.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: Proposal for statement_or_null production question for pass
actionblock
Hi Arturo;
That may well be true. However, all it takes is a simple syntax
change to modify the BNF so that the ';' before the 'else' is no
So I propose the following BNF addition:
Allow the action_block to have another alternative production.
action_block ::= ...
| else statement_or_null
So that
assert (a&b|c)
else $error("Bad combination of variables");
is legal.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 09:38:55 PST