Re: [sv-ac] Call to vote: Due August 8

My Votes:

On 08/03/11 09:56, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:

> Mantis 2578 __x__ Yes ____ No
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2578
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5251&type=bug
> <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5251&type=bug>
>
>
>
> Mantis 3033 __x__ Yes ____ No
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5257&type=bug
> <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5257&type=bug>

Friendly amendments:

17.3 Checker instantiation
Include the entire paragraph in the change. It's much easier to find
the context that way.

Was there a reason for adding the restriction on instantiating a checker
  containing procedural code?

17.3.1
Change:
For instance check_outside,
To
For checker instance check_outside,

In reading the proposal, I kept interpreting this as "for example"

Additional Comment:
I think we did determine that a sequence triggered() method would be
legal in an always_ff:

     always_ff @(sequence.triggered()) begin
         cg.sample()
     end

But it still feels more natural to write it as an always block rather
than an always_ff.

Tom

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