Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: Review of BNF and Keywords by Dan Jacobi
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 11:23:06 PDT
Hello Adam,
The ommission of the final block BNF was an editing error. It had already
been approved and voted on by SV-EC. The fix to this was to do what had
already been voted on.
What you are proposing was not considered by SV-EC and was not part of the
BNF (which says nothing about its value)
If SV-AC feels that they want to extend function to support
immediate_assertions then I will be happy to add it but I need confirmation.
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Adam
Krolnik
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:47 AM
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] RE: Review of BNF and Keywords by Dan Jacobi
Good afternoon;
An issue was raised about the omission of the final block. The action
required was the addition of this BNF:
------------------------------------------
LRM-171 BNF for final blocks was submitted with the original proposal
(CH-79), but did
not specify a section number
ADD to section A.1.5 module_or_generate_item
| { attribute_instance } final_construct
ADD to section A.1.6 interface_or_generate_item
| { attribute_instance } final_construct
ADD to A.6.2
final_construct ::= 'final' function_statement
------------------------------------------
Since this was not part of the BNF, this context was overlooked, where
immediate assertion statements should be allowed to occur.
I propose that immediate assertion statements be part of
function_statement_item.
BNF:
function_statement_item ::==
<the current value>
| immediate_asssert_statement
Omitting this change also prevents usage of immediate assertion statements
inside functions.
Thanks.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 11:21:21 PDT