[sv-ac] FW: P1800 AC issues

Hello Faisal and all,

We went (Surrendra and I) through the issues listed under AC on the spread
sheet. Please find below an initial analysis.

Best regards,

ed

----------------
#20: The return value should be defined as a single bit unsigned bit type
with
the value 0 as false and 1 as true.
True and false are defined in the first paragraph of 18.4 for other
purposes. 
Also, 'define true 1 is defined on pp. 215.

#92: There seems to be no issue here. Please see mantis item 508.

#209: Change the example to use "assert property" instead of "assert" only.

#217: Since it deals with formal semantics, perhaps John could look at
this... :-)

#218: I think that the author has a confusion in how properties are used.
The property in itself does not imply either always or once only, it is only
when placed in an assert and then in either initial or optionally always
where it gets its evaluation quantifier.  
I am not convinced that these additional verification statements are needed.

#220: This is a syntactic sugar which could be added. But, the user has the
option to define p_imply(p1, p2) as (not p1) or p2, and use that as a
primitive. Since it is an enhancement, it should be done in the future.

#221:  @(1'b1) would never trigger. Also, to refer to the context clock can 
be achieved by passing the external clock name as the actual argument 
to a property instance. It seems that this enhancement is not needed.

#222: This is already allowed. tf_port_list includes this.

#284: The value of the number of clock ticks should be non-negative.
Correction is needed.

#241: It seems that any other sampling than #1step (the default) should
produce an error. Resampling a sampled value could lead to confusion of what
exactly the value is.

#128: I could not find what the problem is in 8.4.1. Please refer to mantis
item 408. Perhaps John could look at it...

#210: This is already corrected in D4.

#211: Already corrected in D4

#212: Corrected in D4, also the proposed correction is actually incorrect.

#213: I do not think that the ; is missing because pass_stat could be begin
... end with no ;. Perhaps define that pass_stat and fail_stat are general
statements? Or add the ; ?

#214: Should be corrected.

#219: Editorial correction?

#266: Editorial correction?

----------------