RE: [sv-ac] Call to vote: Due September 12

Mantis 2093 ____ Yes __X__ No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2093 <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2093%20>

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5345&type=bug

Here are the comments:

1. I don’t understand the reason for creating list_of_checker_port_identifiers in bnf. Only thing which is needed is to add optional checker_port_direction.

2. I do not like the way data type is getting inferred in section 17.2. It is not consistent. If we are making it mandatory to specify type if user has keyword ‘output’ then it should be mandatory to put type if ‘input’ is used. This will make it consistent with ‘local…’ type of arguments for properties. If we do not want to make it mandatory then it should infer data type from the previous declaration instead of making it untyped.

3. In the sentence “Similarly to sequences and properties a checker declaration…”, I think it should be ‘Similar to sequence and property declarations, a checker …..”.

4. There is no clarification about how output port initialization is done. Does it happen in reactive region ?

5. Since actual connected to output port of a checker is going to get updated in reactive region, it may be good to show an example how to use this value. Current examples only show the checkers but do not show how to read that value in testbench to get updated value.

Manisha

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.