RE: [sv-ac] proposal for erratum 230

Thanks for the catch John.

1) Indeed this would make a difference (because of the clause of "inward to outward" clock determination).

However, I downloaded "230.pdf" and I still see:

"In a module, interface, or program with a default clocking event, >>>>>all sequence
Declarations<<<<, property declarations, and concurrent assertion statements
that have no otherwise specified leading clocking event are treated
as though the default clocking event had been written explicitly as the
leading clocking event."

How come ? Am I missing something ?

2) One comment I stopped short of sharing at the meeting because I did not have an alternative at the time is: I lament the loss of some graphical notation for the text. I like the text of the proposal a lot, simple and to the point.

I dislike the tables, they were not precise but now that I see the something "supersedes" something else ... Can we may be have some sort of (partial) order notation ? Seems only adequate (not a lattice :-) just a one liner like: default clock < ... < (... | ...) < ... ), WDYT ? Not too formal either just the idea ...

Bottom line, I really think the visual notation is useful, but my intent is not to overburden this proposal we can do that as a corollary later if people think it's worth it ...

Thx.
-Bassam.

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Architect, R&D
Novas Software, Inc.
(408) 467-7893
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:30 AM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] proposal for erratum 230
All:
Doron and I have been proofreading and discussing the proposal for erratum 230.
After reading over the current text of 17.14, we found that the proposal makes a change of substance that I did not notice before.
My understanding of 17.14 in the current 3.1a LRM is that a default clocking event applies only to concurrent assertion statements that are not otherwise clocked.  It does not apply to sequence or property declarations.
The proposal for erratum 230, as we discussed in yesterday's meeting, says that a default clocking event applies to all sequence declarations, property declarations, and concurrent assertion statements that are not otherwise clocked.
It seems to me that we do not need to apply the default clock to sequence and property declarations, since the default clock will flow starting from the concurrent assertion statements.  Also, increasing the scope of the default clock to include the declarations is not backward compatible with 3.1a.
Therefore, I am changing the wording of the proposal for erratum 230 so that the default clocking event applies only to concurrent assertion statements.
Please send any comments or concerns as soon as possible.
Best regards,
John H.