RE: [sv-ac] proposal for erratum 230

Yes, I agree with that.
Question, though: What about sequences that are used only with ended,
matched or triggered. How is the clock determined there? Does it have to be
explicit in the sequence as we discussed some time ago? Or,. can it acquire
the default clock ? (I do not think that inferring it from always makes
sense...)

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:30 PM
> 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.
>
Received on Tue Nov 23 10:41:42 2004