RE: [sv-ac] FW: Mantis SV 0001325

Hi Mehdi,

I looked over the minutes forwarded by Ed to AC, my comments:

AI: "Only default clocking blocks can be unnamed." 

Agreed makes sense.

AI: "Properties and sequences in unnamed clocking blocks can not be
referenced."
2 issues:

Why the specialization here -- why not treat as any other declaration ? 
- If those declarations have meaning and name (unique to enclosing
namespace) then same would apply to seq/props and access
- If NOT then anything declared inside cannot be referenced   

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Eduard Cerny
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:08 AM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] FW: Mantis SV 0001325

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mehdi Mohtashemi
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Eduard Cerny
Subject: RE: Mantis SV 0001325

Hi Ed, I remember the discussion was that some one in sv-ac should place
the proposal in mantis and vote on it, I do not believe we had anyone in
sv-ec to write a full proposal.
Regards,
- Mehdi 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Cerny
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:37 AM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
Subject: RE: Mantis SV 0001325

Hello Mehdi,
Thanks!
Is there a formal proposal entered in Mantis? If not who will do it?

bestest
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:16 PM
> To: Eduard Cerny
> Subject: RE: Mantis SV 0001325
> 
> Hi Ed,
> Neil Korpusik was supposed to send a response on this to sv-ac. Here 
> is the text of our discussion from March 13th sv-ec meeting, hope this

> helps.
> - Mehdi
> 
> =========================
> http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_March_13_2006_M
> inutes.txt
> ....
>    Mantis item 1325 from sv-ac 
>      SV-AC has requested discussion and clarification from sv-ec. 
>      [I will forward the email to the sv-ec reflector]. 
>          1325: clarification for items declared in unnamed clocking 
> blocks.
>    Neil - it seems that the only place where an unnamed clocking block

> would be
> 	  useful would be for the default clocking block.
>    Stu - agrees 
>    Arturo - what if assert is in the clocking block?
>    Dave - assert is not allowed inside of a clocking block.
>    Arturo - default clocking was one use of an unnamed clocking block.
> 	    He thought there was also another use.
>    Surrendra - the original intent was for assert. But that would have

> created
> 	  executable code inside the clocking block.
>    Mehdi - unnamed clocking blocks only allowed for default clocking 
> blocks?
>    Gordon - should just say that unnamed clocking blocks are not 
> referencable.
> 	  Even though it wouldn't be useful to put properties and
sequences 
> in
> 	  there. There was a situation in 2001 where making something
illegal
> 	  had to be redone.
> 
>  
>     There was agreement to add a statement that: "Properites and 
> sequences in
>     unnamed clocking blocks can not be referenced." This would make it

> similar
>     to unnamed generate blocks. There should also be the following
> statement:
>     "Only default clocking blocks can be unnamed."
> 
>     Sub-clause 20.4.5 has an example where the interface modport 
> specifies
>     the name of the clocking block.
> 
> 
> 
>    AI: Neil - send input to the SVAC on our feedback.
> =====================================================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:17 AM
> To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Subject: Mantis SV 0001325
> 
> Hi Mehdi,
> was there any progress on this erratum? (references to unnamed 
> clocking block items)?
> 
> Thanks,
> ed
>