Re: [sv-ac] RE: Open Mantis items

Dana,
Thanks for the explanation. Two questions:

*[Dana] Note, Ben, that we can get closer in terms of compatibility, if we
adopt the PSL semantics but allow declaring a variable of same name in both
operands (we can think of some preprocessing taking place that renames the
variables declared in the different operands to have different names, e.g.
l.v and r.v).*

*
*

[Ben] The goal is to have the same variable in both operands, where I want
to set it in one operand of the intersect, and read it in the other operand.
As you said, the PSL solution would not be backward compatible. Are you then
suggesting a compilation switch (e.g., -2009)?

We need some guidance on the goals. How important is backward compatibility
in this case? How important is alignment to PSL? And, as you said, that
relates to 3057.

Ben

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Dana Fisman <Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com>wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
>
>
>
> Note that this also explains how this issue is related to 3057. Item 3057
> suggests we can declare a variable anywhere within a property or sequence,
> and its scope is defined as the parenthesis encapsulating its declaration.
> Once we have that, one should ask what is the difference between
>
>
>
> (logic v, ( …. v=expr1) intersect ( …. v=expr2) )
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> ((logic v, …. v=expr1) intersect (logic v, …. v=expr2))
>
>
>
> an answer that is consistent with how variables are defined in other
> languages, e.g. C, is that v is the same variable in both operands of
> intersect in the first example but a different, local, variable in the both
> operands of the second example. This is not true in the current approach of
> SVA since v is a different variable in both operands of the first example.
> It is true in PSL.
>
>
>
> Note, Ben, that we can get closer in terms of compatibility, if we adopt
> the PSL semantics but allow declaring a variable of same name in both
> operands (we can think of some preprocessing taking place that renames the
> variables declared in the different operands to have different names, e.g.
> l.v and r.v).
>
>
>
> Dana
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dana Fisman [mailto:dfisman@synopsys.COM]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:49 AM
> *To:* ben@systemverilog.us; Dana Fisman
>
> *Cc:* Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-ac] RE: Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Yes, there will be some backwards compatibility issues if we adopt the PSL
> semantics. Indeed, in order to let a local variable have different behavior
> in different branches of and/intersect you need to either explicitly free
> it, or declare a different one in one of the threads. So the cons are
> backwards compatibility issues but the pros are that the semantics is simple
> and clear, intersect is intersect and not something else, distributivity
> does not break, and no syntactic restrictions are needed.
>
>
>
> With regard to the examples below, they will pass in PSL since the RHS of
> |-> is a tautology. Even if you change to an RHS which is not a tautology
> they will pass since the LHS of |-> is a contradiction. The LHS is a
> contradiction since v1 takes different values in the first cycle of the
> operands of AND.
>
>
>
> You can modify the LHS not to be a contradiction by declaring a different
> variable in each of the operands:
>
> property P1_ala_PSL;
>
> (logic vl; ($rose(a), vl=0) ##1 b && !vl) and
>
> (logic vr; (c, vr=1) ##1 d && vr)) |-> …
>
> endproperty
>
>
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> *From:* ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:24 PM
> *To:* Dana Fisman
> *Cc:* Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] RE: Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> Dana,
>
> *<Thus, if a local variable v appears in both branches of intersect it
> should have the same value throughout in each of the cycles.>*
>
> Adopting the PSL approach is a compatibility issue to IEEE 1800-2009
> because in SVA, the values of the local variables can take on different
> values in each of the threads of the LHS and RHS of the *and/intersect* .
> Below is a model that works OK in SVA.
>
> I did not keep up with PSL, but if what you say above is true about PSL,
> aP1 and aP2 assertions expressed in PSL would fail.
>
>
>
> // In model below, property P1 and P2 both start at 30ns and successfully
> pass at time 70ns.
>
> module test4and;
>
> logic a=0, b=1, c=1, d=1, e=1, clk=0;
>
>
>
> initial forever #10 clk=!clk;
>
> initial begin
>
> @ (posedge clk) a <=1'b1;
>
> end
>
>
>
> property P1;
>
> logic v1, v2;
>
> (($rose(a), v1=0) ##1 b && !v1) and
>
> ((c, v1=1) ##1 d && v1) |=> 1;
>
> endproperty : P1
>
> aP1: assert property(@ (posedge clk) P1);
>
>
>
> property P2;
>
> logic v1, v2;
>
> (($rose(a), v1=0, v2=1) ##1 b && !v1) and
>
> *// ((c, v1=1) ##1 d && v2) |=> 1; // illegal in IEEE 1800-2009 *
>
> ((c, v1=1, v2=0) ##1 d && !v2) |=> 1; // legal in IEEE 1800-2009
>
> endproperty : P2
>
> aP2: assert property(@ (posedge clk) P2);
>
>
>
> endmodule : test4and
>
>
>
> Ben Cohen SystemVerilog.us
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Dana Fisman <Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Yes, the idea in PSL is that intersection is plain intersection also when
> local variables are in the picture. Thus, if a local variable v appears in
> both branches of *intersect* it should have the same value *throughout* in
> *each* of the cycles.
>
> So in
>
> (!a[*] ##1 *(*(a,v++) ##1 !a[*]*)[*]*) intersect (!b[*] ##1 *(
> *(b,v++) ##1 !b[*]*)[*]*)
>
> the a’s and b’s should occur at exactly the same time (as otherwise v will
> change differently in each of the branches).
>
> And
>
> (!a[*] ##1 *(*(a) ##1 !a[*]*)[*]*) intersect (!b[*] ##1 *(*(b,
> v++) ##1 !b[*]*)[*]*)
>
> will not be matched if there is at least one b.
>
>
>
> Since this may not be what one wants, a local variable can be *free*d in a
> certain sequence, this means that it can take any value there.
>
> So that
>
> (free(v) !a[*] ##1 *(*(a) ##1 !a[*]*)[*]*) intersect (!b[*] ##1
> *(*(b,v++) ##1 !b[*]*)[*]*)
>
> can be matched on the same traces as the sequence (!a[*] ##1 (a ##1
> !a[*])[*]) intersect (!b[*] ##1 (b ##1 !b[*])[*]) is, and v will hold the
> number of b’s in that trace.
>
>
>
> Now you can “read” a local variable that is “written” in a parallel branch.
> For instance,
>
> (free(v) !a[*] ##1 *(*(a && v%2==0) ##1 !a[*]*)[*]*) intersect
> (!b[*] ##1 *(*(b,v++) ##1 !b[*]*)[*]*)
>
> will be matched by traces where a’s occur between an even occurrence of b
> to an odd one.
>
>
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> *From:* ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:57 AM
> *To:* Dana Fisman
> *Cc:* Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] RE: Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> Dana,
>
> Are you proposing something like:
>
> property P3; // Current SVA with error
>
> logic v1, v2;
>
> (($rose(a), v1=1) ##1 (b)) and
>
> (($rose(c), v2=0) ##1 (d) && v1) |-> e ;
>
> // local variable v1 referenced in expression where it does not flow.
>
> endproperty : P3
>
> aP3: assert property(@ (posedge clk) P3);
>
>
>
> property P3; // Proposed SVA
>
> logic v1, v2;
>
> (*free *(v2) ($rose(a), v1=1) ##1 (b)) and
>
> (($rose(c), v2=0) ##1 (d) && *v1*) |-> e ; // ??
>
> endproperty : P3
>
> aP3: assert property(@ (posedge clk) P3);
>
>
>
> Actually, the PSL does not seem to address (or show an example of) the
> assignment of a local variable in one sequence that is ANDed with another
> sequence that reads that local variable.
>
>
>
> From the PSL LRM: The free operator when applied to a local variable
> removes the variable from the current scope.
>
> ..
>
> A local variable is visible in the SERE or property in which it is declared
> and in any sub-SERE or sub-property of the SERE or property in which it is
> declared, except if it has been freed using the free operator.
>
> ..
>
> always ([[ reg [31:0] count_r<= 32’d0; reg [31:0] count_w<= 32’d0; ]]
>
> { {fifo_empty;
>
> { free(count_w) read_req[->][[count_r<=count_r+32’d1;]][*];
>
> !read_req[*]} &&
>
> { free(count_r) write_req[->][[count_w<=count_w+32’d1;]][*];
>
> !write_req[*]};
>
> fifo_empty }} |-> {count_r==count_w})
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:36 AM, ben cohen <hdlcohen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dana,
>
> So, what do you propose? That we do something like PSL? Your last sentence
> was cut off.
>
> I am open to any idea.
>
> Q for Dmitry: Can I join the call tomorrow to discuss this?
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Dana Fisman <Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> I looked at your proposal. I understand the motivation behind, but I don’t
> think any new machinery is needed to get what you want. More precisely, if
> we align to the PSL semantics I believe we can address this for free.
>
>
>
> Let me explain the main difference in the semantics of local variables in
> SVA and PSL. The issue both semantics are trying to overcome has to do with
> the sequence operators intersect/and/or which are perceived as parallel
> threads. Then questions such as “can a local variable have different values
> in different parallel threads?”, and “what should the value be after the
> threads unite back?” arise.
>
>
>
> In SVA the semantics of sequences looks at the value of local variables
> only at the beginning and end of a match of a sequence. To overcome the
> above issues (A) special functions (flow\block\sample) are used to
> determine the value of local variables when the threads unite, and (B)
> syntactic restrictions are imposed so that controversial scenarios are
> disallowed.
>
>
>
> In PSL the semantics of sequences looks at the value of local variables at
> all cycles of the match (rather than just at the beginning and end) as is
> the case for any other (non-local) variable. As a result no change is needed
> for or and intersect -- they are plain union and intersection. Moreover no
> syntactic restrictions are imposed.
>
>
>
> Now let’s interpret the examples in your proposal as in PSL. It seems to me
> t
>
>
>
> *From:* ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2011 5:28 PM
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Cc:* Dana Fisman; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] RE: Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> On 3195, I uploaded a tentative, non-formal proposal. It is available at
> http://bit.ly/gMewk9
>
> and in attached file Anextensionforlocalvariables.pdf at
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=3195
>
>
>
> Ben Cohen
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Korchemny, Dmitry <
> dmitry.korchemny@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dana,
>
>
>
> 3057 is a pure syntactical proposal and it is independent from other two.
> If somebody is willing to address 3195, he/she can also address 3059. We can
> discuss it next time. The freeze date is September-October 2011.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> *From:* Dana Fisman [mailto:Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 16, 2011 09:03
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* RE: Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>
>
> I would like us to reconsider the recommendation given for item regarding
> local variables. The current recommendation is:
>
>
>
> 3057
>
> WIP
>
> Make local variables a first class language construct in SVA.
>
> 3059
>
> Postpone
>
> Study PSL local variables and determine if any alignment is warranted.
>
> 3195
>
> Address if feasible
>
> Local Variables Flow Out Issue in and/or/intersect/implies
>
>
>
> I believe the 3 items are closely related. In PSL local variables are first
> class constructs, and there are no flow out issues with
> and/or/intersect/implies. So perhaps we can tackle all at once and get a
> satisfactory coherent solution addressing all concerns regarding local
> variables.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> PS
>
> Can you remind me/us of the deadlines we should meet for this PAR.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Korchemny,
> Dmitry
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:01 PM
> *To:* 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Open Mantis items
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am attaching a spreadsheet with open Mantis items along with the
> recommendations regarding their processing made at SV-AC F2F meeting.
>
>
>
> The following recommendations have been made:
>
> · WIP – the items are targeted to be addressed at the current PAR
>
> · Postpone – the items are not targeted to be addressed at the
> current PAR (to be addressed or reevaluated at the next PAR)
>
> · Next PAR – items targeted for the current PAR, but we don’t have
> a sufficient bandwidth to address them now.
>
> · Close – the items are non-relevant or duplicate.
>
> · Address if feasible – the item owner to decide.
>
>
>
> Every item was assigned an owner.
>
>
>
> Action items required from the item owner:
>
> · Check whether you agree with the recommendation. If you don’t,
> send an email with an alternative recommendation to be discussed in the
> SV-AC meeting.
>
> · If the recommendation is “address if feasible”, modify it to WIP
> if you intend working on it during this PAR or to Postpone otherwise. If
> your recommendation is different from these two, send an email with a
> discussion request.
>
> · If the ultimate recommendation is “Close”, confirm this
> recommendation by email and we will vote to resolve this item as “No change
> required”.
>
> · Set the priority of issues ultimately marked as WIP and Close to
> high, to all other issues to low.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.