Hi Lisa, Perhaps the best is if you could update the proposal with the statements below, send it to me and I will send it to the other groups or send it to them directly (and to sv-ac). Thanks, ed ________________________________ From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:34 PM To: Eduard Cerny; Brad Pierce Cc: sv-ac@verilog.org Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated Hi Ed, If I understand correctly, the proposal is to change the definition of event expression to event_expression ::= [ edge_identifier ] expression [ iff expression ] | sequence_instance [ iff expression ] | event_expression or event_expression | event_expression , event_expression | ( event_expression, event_expression ) Note: parentheses are required when an event expression that contains comma-separated event expressions is passed as an actual argument using positional binding. I agree with this and also agree that we need to consult with other groups. Is that something that you do or I need to do? Lisa ________________________________ From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:16 AM To: Lisa Piper; Brad Pierce Cc: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@verilog.org Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated Hi Lisa et al, the proposal seems fine now, but the question is whether the definition of event_expression should be changed to include parentheses and a note added to require parentheses when , separation of events is used, as discussed on email. I suppose that if we do this change to event_expression we should consult with other grouups, SV-BC, CC? What's your opinion? Best regards, ed ________________________________ From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:55 PM To: Brad Pierce Cc: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@verilog.org Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated Thanks Brad - you have a good eye! I have incorporated the changes in the attached and will update Mantis. lisa ________________________________ From: Brad Pierce [mailto:Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:00 PM To: Lisa Piper Cc: Eduard Cerny Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated Lisa, I think property_port_item and sequence_port_item each have an extra semicolon at the end that should be deleted. Also, I would recommend defining property_actual_arg as property_actual_arg ::= property_instance | sequence_actual_arg -- Brad ________________________________ From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Piper Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:52 PM To: sv-ac@verilog.org Subject: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated Hi all, 928 is ready for review again. I have reviewed and incorporated comments from John Pierce, Bassom Tabbara, John Havlicek's, Miller Hillel, and Ed Cerny. The summary is as follows: The purpose is to fix issues with the existing BNF. Specifically: 1. removal of list_of_formals, formal_list_item, and actual_arg_expr that were not referenced 2. list_of_arguments was redfined as sequence_list_of_arguments and property_list_of_arguments. actual_arg was defined as sequence_actual_arg and property_actual arg. They should be unique because sequences cannot have property arguments. 3. tf_port list was replaced by sequence_port_list and property_port_list to fix the issue that tf_port_list does not allow default values assignment other than expression. The new definition allows for intiialization of all args in the definition. Named or positional association of arguments is allowed when the sequence or property is instantiated. 4. Actual args for a sequence include sequence_instance or event_expression (which includes expressions) Actual args for a property are the same as for a sequence with the addition of a property_instance. LisaReceived on Sun Jun 25 03:36:26 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 25 2006 - 03:36:49 PDT