[sv-ac] RE: Proposal to close mantis 3202 (assertion system functions in classes)

OK, let's vote to close 3202 in today's SV-AC, and I'll create a new ticket on defining sampling for classes.

From: Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:41 AM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: Proposal to close mantis 3202 (assertion system functions in classes)

Hi Erik,

The issue itself exists, and it may be useful to have sampled value functions in classes. Probably, the right thing is to open a new item for this specific issue and to close 3202.

Regards,
Dmitry

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 22:23
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Proposal to close mantis 3202 (assertion system functions in classes)

I just added this note:

In discussion with the SV-AC, we decided that in the case of the sampled value functions, it would not make sense to extend these to classes until we bring up the general issue of extending sampling and concurrent assertions to classes, which will not happen in this PAR.

As for the bit vector functions, the proposal for 2476 adds this sentence to 20.9: "The functions $countbits, $countones, $onehot, $onehot0, and $isunknown may be used in any context where a value of their return type is legal, including constant expressions as specified in 11.2.1." I believe this directly implies that they are legal in classes (and constraints).

So, I think we should close this ticket with no change needed.

--
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.