Re: [sv-ac] Call to vote: Due June 20

Mantis 3033 ____ Yes __X__ No // Needs more discussions, see below for
comments

Mantis 3069 __X__ Yes ____ No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3069

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5142&type=bug

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM, ben cohen <hdlcohen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dmitry,
> Questions on 3033:
>
> -
>
> Arguments that cannot be sampled, such as events, sequences, and
> properties, are treated similarly to such arguments for sequences and
> properties (see 16.8): they are substituted directly for the formal argument
> when it is used in statements or expressions within the checker.
>
> [Ben] In LRM 17.3 Why were the statements about sequences and properties
> deleted?
> Nothing is mentioned about the handling of sequences and properties as
> arguments.
> Consider the following example:
> checker assert_window (
> logic test_expr, // Expression to be true in the window
> sequence start_event, // Window opens at the completion of the
> start_event
> sequence end_event, // Window closes at the completion of the end_event
> event clock = $inferred_clock,
> logic reset = $inferred_disable,
> string error_msg = "violation",
> coverage_level clevel = cover_all //This argument should be bound to an
> //elaboration time constant expression
> );
> logic x, y;
> rand logic w;
> sequence IsThisLegal; // ??
> x ##1 start_event ##[2:10] w ##1 end_event;
> endsequence : IsThisLegal // ??
>
> Editorial:
>
> All forms of always procedures are allowed in checkers. A general purpose
> always procedure in checkers is equivalent to always_ff procedure and the
> same restrictions apply (see 9.2.2.4). All expressions in always and
> always_ff procedures except for the expressions in the event control are
> sampled (see 16.5.1
> [Ben] I think you need a comma before the "and" , the "except", and
> "control" Does this read better?
>
> All forms of always procedures are allowed in checkers. A general purpose
> always procedure in checkers is equivalent to always_ff procedure, and the
> same restrictions apply (see 9.2.2.4). Except for the expressions in the
> event control, all expressions in always and always_ff procedures are
> sampled (see 16.5.1.
>
> [Ben] What about arguments of sequences or properties that are arguments of
> the checker. For example:
>
> checker assert_window (
> logic test_expr, // Expression to be true in the window
> sequence start_event(logic x, y, clk), // Window opens at the completion
> of the start_event
> property P(logic x, y, int i);
>
>
> [Ben] Editorial in 17.5 add a comma after always_ff procedure, as shown
> below.
> But, I do have a question here: In this paragraph you explain the
> rationale for the changes, and why they are needed. But does that really
> belong IN the LRM? It seems to me that the LRM is more of a specification
> document, and does not necessarily need the rationalizations behind all the
> decisions. This rationalization belongs outside the p1800 doc, and more in
> the motivation and rationalization section. LRM has examples to further
> explain the points.
> The assertion a1 passes in this case. Were the sampled values used in
> always_ff procedures, as it is done in modules, two scenarios could be
> possible
>
> 17.7.1
>
> -
>
> A checker variable may not be assigned in an initial procedure. For
> example:
>
> bit v;
>
> initial v = 1'b0; // Illegal
>
> [Ben] How about adding something like:
>
>
> -
>
> A checker variable may not be assigned in an initial procedure, but
> maybe initialized in its declaration. For example:
>
> bit v, w=1'b1;
>
> initial v = 1'b0; // Illegal
>
>
> Ben Cohen
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Korchemny, Dmitry <
> dmitry.korchemny@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> -You have until 11.59 pm PDT, Wednesday, June 20, 2011 to respond
>>
>> -An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible
>> voters respond with a YES vote.
>>
>> -If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason.
>> The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference call.
>>
>>
>>
>> As of the June 14, 2011 meeting, the eligible voters are:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ashok Bhatt
>>
>> Laurence Bisht
>>
>> Eduard Cerny
>>
>> Ben Cohen
>>
>> Shaun Feng
>>
>> Tapan Kapoor
>>
>> Jacob Katz
>>
>> Scott Little
>>
>> Manisha Kulshrestha
>>
>> Anupam Prabhakar
>>
>> Samik Sengupta
>>
>> Tom Thatcher
>>
>>
>>
>> Mantis 3033 ____ Yes ____ No
>>
>> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
>>
>> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5152&type=bug
>>
>>
>>
>> Mantis 3069 ____ Yes ____ No
>>
>> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3069
>>
>> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5142&type=bug
>>
>>
>>
>> Below are the changes made in 3069:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Replaced “global clocking declaration in effect” with
>> “effective global clocking declaration”
>>
>> - Fixed punctuation and spelling
>>
>> - Changed
>>
>> However, any of its instances in the elaborated design description shall
>> contain at most one global clocking declaration. It shall be an error if
>> there is more than one global clocking declaration in a given module,
>> interface, checker or program instance in the elaborated design description.
>>
>> To
>>
>> However, any of its instances in the elaborated design description shall
>> contain at most one global clocking declaration; it shall be an error
>> otherwise.
>>
>> - Changed
>>
>> When global clocking is referenced in a sequence declaration, a property
>> declaration, or as an actual argument to a named sequence instance, a named
>> property instance, or a checker instance, the point of reference shall be
>> considered after the application of the rewriting algorithm defined in
>> F.4.1, which flattens properties and sequences, and substitutes actual
>> arguments to sequence, property and checker instances for their
>> corresponding formal arguments. As a result, when a property or a sequence
>> declaration containing a reference to global clocking is instantiated in an
>> assertion statement, the hierarchical lookup rules described above shall be
>> applied from the place of the assertion statement appearance in the source
>> description, not from the point of the sequence or the property declaration.
>> Similarly, when global clocking is referenced in an actual argument of a
>> checker instance, the lookup rules shall be applied after the substitution
>> of the actual argument in place of the corresponding formal argument inside
>> the checker body.
>>
>> To
>>
>> When global clocking is referenced in a sequence declaration, a property
>> declaration, or as an actual argument to a named sequence instance, a named
>> property instance, or a checker instance, the point of reference shall be
>> considered after the application of the rewriting algorithm defined in
>> F.4.1. As a result, when a property or a sequence declaration is
>> instantiated in an assertion statement, the hierarchical lookup rules
>> described above shall be applied from the place of the assertion statement
>> appearance in the source description, not from the point of the sequence or
>> the property declaration. Similarly, the lookup rules shall be applied after
>> the substitution of the actual argument in place of the corresponding formal
>> argument inside the checker body.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.