RE: [sv-ac] recursive properties

HI Doron,

at a quick look it seems reasonable. I will read more carefully later.
Yes, the workaround for pass by value could be as you indicated. 

Best regards,
ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Doron Bustan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:32 PM
> To: Eduard Cerny
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] recursive properties
> 
> Ed,
> 
> looking at the current restrictions, it seems that the 
> relevant one is:
> 
> RESTRICTION 4: For every recursive instance of property q in the 
> declaration of property p, each
> actual argument expression e of the instance satisfies at 
> least one of 
> the following conditions:
> - e is itself a formal argument of p.
> - No formal argument of p appears in e.
> - e is passed to a formal argument of q that is typed and the set of 
> values for the type is bounded.
> 
> in this restriction I think that only
> 
> - e is passed to a formal argument of q that is typed and the set of 
> values for the type is bounded.
> 
> may introduce a problem. One way to solve it is to remove this option 
> having:
> 
> RESTRICTION 4: For every recursive instance of property q in the 
> declaration of property p, each
> actual argument expression e of the instance satisfies at 
> least one of 
> the following conditions:
> - e is itself a formal argument of p.
> - No formal argument of p appears in e.
> 
> Note, that we can still pass a design signal using one of the 
> remaining 
> options.
> 
> I think that argument that are typed with bounded type, should be 
> allowed to be pass by value
> (copied to the argument), but I don't think we have that way 
> of passing 
> argument in SVA properties.
> 
> This can be done using local variables, right?
> 
> something like
> 
> property p1(int i, j);
> int i1;
> 
> (1,i1 = i) ##0
> (j == 7) or
> (
> (i > 0) and
> ((a ##1 b) |-> p1(i1+2, j))
> );
> endproperty
> 
> Doron
> 
>