Subject: [sv-ac] Re: Straw Poll on issues
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 13:50:20 PST
Hi All,
My votes (used same issues list as Adam sent out, although some proposal
headings need to be more descriptive). I put some comments after each
rejected item.
[Y] 1 additional property directive: assume
[N] 2 immediate assume
No need for this, does not add much value, may be even adds confusion.
[Y] 3 assume synchronization
This is the "constraint" proposal right ? ** Needs
discussion/refinement.
[N] 4 local variable extensions
I would rather we address this as an issue of argument passing. The
relaxation is needed but until we have a better means of doing this,
would rather keep the restriction strict (as it is 3.1).
[N] 5 clock_var_assign
Would rather have a uniform solution, that "opens up" interaction (i.e.
sampling of assertion results) throughout the language testbench
portion, not just in clocking domains. Related to item: 17 and 18. Merge
all together and have a uniform and coherent approach.
[Y] 6 clock variable access
(this is the $sampled).
[N] 7 parameter in properties
I think may be we need to review the section and make sure it is clear
you can pass expressions. But I feel the function is already there.
[N] 8 sequence passing
I agree with the spirit. But I dislike the suggested mechanism ("import"
in arguments). We should move this to EC. Related to 16.
[Y] 9 pass $ (infinite) through property arguments.
[N] 10 enhance implication
Syntactic sugar that will only serve to confuse user, would rather keep
it simple.
[Y] 11 recursive properties
[N] 12 boolean property connectives
Would rather leave composition only at sequence level
[Y] 13 assertions in functions
[Y] 14 gated clock support
[N] 16 modports importing assertions
Move to EC related to 8.
[N] 17 event created from sequence/property for reactive functionality.
Related to 5 and 18. Coherent framework needed.
[N] 18 extend wait to work on sequence/property
Related to 5 and 17. Coherent framework needed.
[N] 19 embed assertions in structures.
Move to BC/EC.
[Y] ?? Proposal for action blocks using sampled variable values.
This one is same as 6, right ?
[Y] ?? Proposal for error message having access to local variables.
Here's John's (the ones not covered in items above)
[N] generalized implication
Keep it simple ..
[N] property instances
Keep at sequence level
[N] property recursion
I like the idea but:
A) would want to keep it at sequence level
B) recursion seems to be "tail recursion" ... Recursion is a tool
inefficient way to do this, seems like we can do this better by:
- looping construct
- some operator enhancement at sequence level (until).
[N] property negation
Keep at sequence level (same as 12 above)
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&D Novas Software, Inc.http://www.novas.com (408) 467-7893
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 13:51:01 PST