Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Adam:

I agree with your comment about the compiler team.

However, we also have some text in the LRM that 
attempts to define what is legal for argument passing
to untyped formal arguments.   It says something
about substituting the actual argument expressions
(with extra parentheses if needed to avoid operator
precedence issues) and checking that the resulting 
expanded expressions are legal.

That rule is broken in the presence of the extra
parentheses that I pointed out.

Best regards,

John H.


> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:56:28 -0500
> From: Adam Krolnik <krolnik@lsil.com>
> CC: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com, piper@cadence.com,
>         spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com, Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com,
>         sv-ac@verilog.org
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2006 20:57:49.0136 (UTC) FILETIME=[85128500:01C6963E]
> 
> 
> 
> Hi John;
> 
>  >   assert property foo((posedge clk), a, b);
>  >we expect to get something equivalent to
>  >   assert property (@((posedge clk)) a |-> b);
>  >and "@((posedge clk))" doesn't parse.
> 
> You are assuming textual substitution. The compiler team may not choose to use
> substitution for this construct.
> 
> 
> -- 
>      Soli Deo Gloria
>      Adam Krolnik
>      ZSP Verification Mgr.
>      LSI Logic Corp.
>      Plano TX. 75074
>      Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"