RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Dimitry (and Bassam),

I agree completely, and when we can add enhancements we should
definitely add this, along with property, sequence, and const for
repetition and delays. 

It is difficult to know what is a "fix" versus an enhancement, but I
think that is definitely an enhancement, assuming the others are.
Perhaps the team will decide that none are enhancements but rather all
are fixes?

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:55 PM
To: Lisa Piper; Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Lisa,

I think that the requirement "Untyped arguments must therefore be listed
before any typed arguments" is too restrictive. Consider the following
example:

property impl (a, b, int rpt = 0, clk=proj_clk, rst='0);
	@(clk) disable iff (rst) (a[*rpt] |-> b);
endproperty

The user may want to keep the arguments in THIS order.

Introducing an optional explicit type for untyped arguments (say,
"anytype") would solve this problem:

property impl (a, b, int rpt = 0, anytype clk=proj_clk, rst='0);
	@(clk) disable iff (rst) (a[*rpt] |-> b);
endproperty

Or even make the declaration required:

property impl (anytype a, b, int rpt = 0, anytype clk=proj_clk, rst='0);
	@(clk) disable iff (rst) (a[*rpt] |-> b);
endproperty

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Piper
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:02 AM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

One more time!  Here it is with Brad's modification.

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 9:19 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

John,

Your example would still not be legal under the current proposal.

Was the actual intent then to add the following?

    | ( event_expression )

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:29 AM
To: Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Brad:

I think parentheses will be useful.  A user might prefer to
write 

  (posedge clk iff enabled) or reset

in place of

  posedge clk iff enabled or reset


If we don't put the parentheses in the event_expression syntax,
we have another problem because our rule for passing actual 
arguments to untyped formal arguments is that the result of 
replacement of formal arguments with actual arguments be legal.

Best regards,

John H.

> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda-stds.org: majordom set sender to
owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org using -f
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:39:21 -0700
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated 
> Thread-Index:
AcaUq1rmBGvZmHrHSSKxGG7GuLoqTAAn31vgABTfwPAAfnoY0AAbbB2gAAZU46A=
> From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2006 06:39:28.0156 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1B55DDC0:01C69822]
> X-Virus-Status: Clean
> Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C69822.1B0E7A63
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Lisa,
> 
> =20
> 
> Is the parenthesized form a useful addition to the event_expression
> syntax outside of arg passing?=20
> 
> =20
> 
> Maybe it should be allowed only in sequence_actual_arg.  For that
> localized change there would be no need to consult with other
> subcommittees.
> 
> =20
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> =20
> 
> =20
>