Re: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-av] checker: Is timeunit / timeprecision disallowed?

Is there a restriction that the  timeunit / timescale be in first line of a
module or interface?
3.14.2.2 shows it as the 1st line after module.  Does it really make sense
to have a checker with a timeunit/timescale since it is inserted into a
module or an interface, and even inline with some code?
Ben


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Mlynek <danielm@aldec.com.pl>
wrote:

>  Formal Syntax also disalows using timeunits/timeprecision in checkers
> There is lot of restriction for checkers which seems to have not much
> sense. It is hard to say which was just "simple ommision" and which was
> done in purpose.
>
>
> DANiel
>
>
> W dniu 1/30/2015 2:24 AM, Rich, Dave pisze:
>
>  I’m going to take a guess and suggest that this was a simple omission. I
> can’t think of a reason it should be dis-allowed, but I would be welcome to
> hear any.
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ben Cohen
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:49 PM
> *To:* sv-ac@eda.org; Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Re: [sv-av] checker: Is timeunit / timeprecision
> disallowed?
>
>
>
> On second thoughts, it should be disabled because of section 3.14.2.2
> since the checker is embedded inside a module or interface.  The illegal
> use of  timeunit and timeprecision in a checker is implicitly defined, but
> not explicit.
>
>
>
> 3.14.2.2 The timeunit and timeprecision keywords
>
> There shall be *at most one time unit and one time precision for any
> module, program, package, or interface definition* or in any
> compilation-unit scope. This shall define a time scope. If specified, the
> timeunit and timeprecision declarations shall precede any other items in
> the current time scope. The timeunit and timeprecision declarations can be
> repeated as later items, but must match the previous declaration within the
> current time scope
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Ben Cohen <hdlcohen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I could not find this restriction in 1800.
>
> If it is (or is not) shouldn't this be addressed?
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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* <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.