RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Ed,

If we add #(parameters) to sequences and properties we will most
probably will need the same for tasks and functions. 

Thanks
Hillel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On
Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:53 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Adam Krolnik; Lisa Piper
Cc: Bassam Tabbara; Havlicek John-r8aaau; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com;
Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

I agree with Dmitry, we do need untyped argumenst, unless we introduce
parameterized properties, i.e., someything like #(parameters) (args)
forms.
And even then ...
The typed arguments were introduced initially to deal with recusrive
properties and I think that this is where it will be used most.

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:48 PM
> To: Adam Krolnik; Lisa Piper
> Cc: Bassam Tabbara; john.havlicek@freescale.com; 
> Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM; 
> sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> I think that the requirement to keep all arguments typed if at least 
> one of them is typed is too strong. Consider the following example:
> 
> property p(bit en, a, b, c, int n);
> 	en |=> ({a, b} == c) [*n];
> endproperty
> 
> You cannot make a and b typed without loss of generality - you will 
> have to declare a separate property for each length combination.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Adam Krolnik
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:17 PM
> To: Lisa Piper
> Cc: Bassam Tabbara; john.havlicek@freescale.com; 
> Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com; Korchemny, Dmitry; 
> Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Lisa;
> 
> You did not include events in your list of necessary types - for 
> passing in clocks, or resets, or other.
> 
> If one can specify a type for the argument, is it necessary to allow 
> for a void type?
> If the new types are going to be added, I would like to see the 
> supported two ways to specify the interface for the property or 
> sequence:
> 
> 1. All untyped
> 2. All typed
> 
> If you've gone to the trouble of giving some arguments types (for the 
> purposes of helping ensure they are using them correctly) then you 
> will give all the arguments a type.
> 
> Alternatively, one may not care about the type and mostly use 
> arguments for signals, numbers, etc.
> 
> Lastly, is 'const' a type modifier? Is there an implicit type 
> associated with it?
> I would expect that users would use 'int' or 'logic' instead of 
> reaching for const initially. What about '$' for infinite value - it 
> would have to be accepted under 'const'.
> 
>     Thanks.
> 
> -- 
>      Soli Deo Gloria
>      Adam Krolnik
>      ZSP Verification Mgr.
>      LSI Logic Corp.
>      Plano TX. 75074
>      Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"
>