[sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM

Subject: [sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM
From: Kausik Datta (kausikd@cal.interrasystems.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 03:53:00 PST

• Next message: Arif Samad: "[sv-ac] Straw poll votes"
• Previous message: Surrendra Dudani: "[sv-ac] straw poll vote"
• Next in thread: Peter Flake: "Re: [sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM"
• Reply: Peter Flake: "Re: [sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,
Here is a conflict of assertion related rules in BNF.
Thanks
Kausik

Consider the following rules -

description ::= statement_or_null
               | module_root_item
               | ....

statement_or_null can contain procedural_assertion_item.

procedural_assertion_item :: = immediate_assert_item
                               | assert_property_statement
                               | cover_property_statement

again, module_root_item can contain concurrent_assertion_item

concurrent_assertion_item
     ::= [block_identifier] assert_property_statement
          | [block_identifier] cover_property_statement
          | .....

So, if someone writes the rule assert_property_statement in the root
scope, then there is a conflict. assert_property_statement can be
derived from statement_or_null rule as well as from module_root_item.

same thing happens if someone writes the rule cover_property_statement
in root scope.

• Next message: Arif Samad: "[sv-ac] Straw poll votes"
• Previous message: Surrendra Dudani: "[sv-ac] straw poll vote"
• Next in thread: Peter Flake: "Re: [sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM"
• Reply: Peter Flake: "Re: [sv-ac] Conflict in Sv3.1 LRM"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 03:54:05 PST