RE: [sv-ac] proposal for erratum 230

Hi Doron,
I thought that sequences and properties cannot be declared in always blocks,
only the verification statements (assert, cover, assume). See 17.13.5.
Default clock is OK, since it sits somwehere at the top of all declarations.

In any case, John disallowed inferring clocks for sequences and properties
in his text, no?

ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doron Bustan [mailto:dbustan@freescale.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:45 PM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: 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 12:57:20 2004