Re: [sv-ac] Need clarification from EC on #1325 (currently in SV-AC bin)

Hi Bassam:

If you allow an unnamed default clocking block with declared
items inside, then I think it still needs to be clarified how
the namespaces work.  For example, can there be an item named 
"p" declared in the unnamed default clocking block and also
an item named "p" declared in the enclosing context?  If so, then 
the shadowing rules need to be clear for references to "p" 
both inside and outside the clocking block.

This stuff might be clear to others, but I don't recall seeing
it written down.  

Best regards,

John H.


> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:35:05 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] Need clarification from EC on #1325 (currently in SV-AC bin)
> Thread-Index: AcY+O+W8BG2MBp9DT+yR5vDi8DF0nwABG+nQ
> From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com>, <sv-ac@eda.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2006 21:35:08.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D6F40E0:01C63E41]
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Thx for listing the alternatives for EC to consider.
> 
> About your last point on default clocking, my thinking is to allow
> unnamed versions because any reference outside (say to property p
> declared inside) does not need the name hierarchy prefix, it goes to
> default (by default :)).
> 
> -Bassam.
> 
> --
> Dr. Bassam Tabbara
> Synopsys, Inc.
> (650) 584-1973
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM
> Cc: Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Need clarification from EC on #1325 (currently in
> SV-AC bin)
> 
> Hi Bassam:
> 
> I just want to point out some other options for unnamed clocking blocks.
> One could allow them and treat items declared within them to be in the
> enclosing namespace.  From the point of view of declaration of assertion
> items, this would allow the clocking block to group and attach the clock
> without requiring the clocking block name when referencing a declared
> item. =20
> 
> Another possibility is to allow assertion statements (assert, cover,
> assume) inside the clocking block itself and allow them to reference the
> declared items inside that clocking block, but not within other unnamed
> clocking blocks.
> 
> I see some advantages and disadvantages to both of these options.
> If others do not see clearly what the right thing to do is, then your
> suggestion about making the unnamed clocking blocks illegal may be
> safest.
> 
> By the way, a default clocking block can still have items declared
> within it, so allowing default clocking to be unnamed leaves open the
> question.  I like being able to write a default clocking with no items
> in it--in fact I'd like to be able to write=20
> 
>    default clocking <event>;
> 
> instead of=20
> 
>    default clocking [name] <event>; endclocking
> 
> One could say that default clocking can be unnamed provided there are no
> items declared within.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John H.
> 
> > X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to=20
> > owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:13:17 -0800
> > Thread-Topic: Need clarification from EC on #1325 (currently in SV-AC=20
> > bin)
> > Thread-Index: AcY+JPrOY/v4ADowSO+hBKxD7QX7TQ=3D=3D
> > From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
> > Cc: <sv-ac@eda.org>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2006 18:13:25.0598 (UTC)=20
> > FILETIME=3D[FFAE0FE0:01C63E24]
> > X-Virus-Status: Clean
> > Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> >=20
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >=20
> > ------_=3D_NextPart_001_01C63E24.FFB64D8E
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > 	charset=3D"us-ascii"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >=20
> > Hi Mehdi,
> > =3D20
> > On behalf of AC, can I request that you and EC look over the following
> 
> > item, even take it over ? -- currently in AC's bin, assigned to me.
> > =3D20
> > ** In my opinion, if not default clocking then it's illegal (unnamed
> > block) -- In fact, not sure now what purpose unnamed clocking block=20
> > serves (except for default), so worthy of a clarification in that=20
> > clause/section.
> >=20
> > Thx.
> > -Bassam.
> > =3D20
> > =3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
> > **Issue 1325: Clarify references to items declared in unnamed clocking
> 
> > blocks.=3D20 =3D20 A clocking block is not required to have a=20
> > clocking_identifier (i.e., name). If sequences or properties are=20
> > declared within such a clocking block, they must be instantiated=20
> > outside the clocking block in assertion statements in order to be=20
> > evaluated. The LRM does not say how to reference such declarations or=20
> > whether such references are illegal.
> >=20
> > For example, is the following legal?
> >=20
> >    module foo (...);
> >    ...
> >       clocking @(event);
> >           property p; ... endproperty
> >       endclocking
> >       a1 : assert property (p); // <<<<<<<<<<
> >   endmodule=3D20
> > =3D3D=3D3D
>