Re: [sv-ac] proposal for erratum 230

Hi Ed,

the way I understand it, the clock is inferred from the always,
can you explain way it doesn't make sense?

Thanks

Doron

Eduard Cerny wrote:

>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 12:44:51 2004