Re: [sv-ac] RE: comments on 3525

A simulator I tried accepts if(b) p1 else p2
and rejects if (b) p1; else p2;
Also, I tried it with p1 or p2 being a named property or a property
expression (e.g., a |=> b // without the ";")
Ben

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Eduard Cerny <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>wrote:

> But we are still left with if-else. Should it be as****
>
> ** **
>
> if (b) p1; else p2;****
>
> ** **
>
> or as****
>
> if(b) p1 else p2****
>
> ** **
>
> ?****
>
> Thanks****
>
> ed****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Dana
> Fisman Ofek
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:26 AM
> *To:* John Havlicek; sv-ac@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] RE: comments on 3525****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi John,****
>
> ****
>
> If we just add the semicolon in the property_case_item as follows****
>
> ****
>
> property_case_item::= ****
>
> expression_or_dist { , expression_or_dist } : property_expr ;**
> **
>
> | *default* [ : ] property_expr****
>
> ****
>
> wouldn't we enjoy both? (I.e. the first example below would be legal as
> you want it to and weird stuff like ****
>
> a ##1 b; or c; until d will be illegal). ****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> Dana****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Havlicek
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:51 AM
> *To:* sv-ac@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] comments on 3525****
>
> ****
>
> Hi Folks:****
>
> ****
>
> I’ve looked quickly over Mantis 3525.****
>
> ****
>
> I think I understand the concern. When we created the current two-level
> syntax (property_expr and property_statement), we were trying to allow the
> user to write “if … else” and “case” properties in a way that would look
> like procedural code. So, for example, we wanted to enable (and in some
> cases enforce) writing “;” to terminate a case item, and this would enable
> a property case to look like****
>
> ****
>
> property foo;****
>
> case (sel)****
>
> a1: p1;****
>
> a2: p2;****
>
> default: p;****
>
> endcase****
>
> endproperty ****
>
> ****
>
> From my understanding of 3525, this will now be illegal, both because of
> the missing “;” between “endcase” and “endproperty” and also because of the
> “;”s appearing after “p1”, “p2”, and “p”. So in 3525 syntax, this would be
> rewritten as****
>
> ****
>
> property foo;****
>
> case (sel)****
>
> a1: p1****
>
> a2: p2****
>
> default: p****
>
> endcase;****
>
> endproperty ****
>
> ****
>
> My naïve conjecture is that everything legal in 3525 is already currently
> legal, but a lot of stuff that is currently legal becomes illegal in 3525.
> I realize that the cyclic syntax is very liberal and that a lot of the
> stuff that is legal now and that becomes illegal in 3525 is strange looking
> (like inserting “;” willy-nilly in property expressions, or gratuitously
> after “endcase”, etc.). But there is also some not-so-strange looking
> stuff (like the first example above) that becomes illegal in 3525.****
>
> ****
>
> Can we find a better balance?****
>
> ****
>
> John Havlicek****
>
> johnh@cadence.com ****
>
Received on Thu Jun 28 08:43:56 2012