RE: [sv-ac] #1532

I see... thanks. Yes, in that case ps_sequence_identifier would work.
ed


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org]
On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
	Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:53 PM
	To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1532
	
	
	It doesn't work that way.  The semantic prefixes in the BNF are
normative.  For example, if 'foo' is declared as a function, it could
not be parsed as a task_identifier.
	 
	I'd also like to add that the grammar for event_control is not
ambiguous.  The LRM is not required to provide a BNF that can simply be
copied into Yacc.  An LALR(1) parser generator is going to experience
many conflicts if its input specification follows the BNF too closely.
To get around the limitations of LALR(1) it's often necessary to accept
a superset of the legal syntax, then whittle away illegal syntax with
semantic checks.
	 
	The Mantis item is not strictly speaking an erratum.  It is a
request to make parsing easier. 
	 
	-- Brad
	
	

________________________________

	From: Eduard Cerny 
	Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:43 PM
	To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ac] #1532
	
	
	Not directly, but the LRM says:
	 
	hierarchical_event_identifier ::= hierarchical_identifier

	hierarchical_identifier ::= [ $root . ] { identifier
constant_bit_select . } identifier

	 

	and a sequence name is an identifier.

	 

	ed


________________________________

		From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
		Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:39 PM
		To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
		Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1532
		
		
		A sequence is a kind of event?
		 
		-- Brad

________________________________

		From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
		Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:35 PM
		To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
		Subject: RE: [sv-ac] #1532
		
		
		Hi,
		 
		This proposal does not break backward compatibility as
@hierarchical_event_identifier takes care of the case 
		a = @s c;
		 
		What this proposal is saying is that if there is a
parameterized sequence instance, it has to be inside '(..)' so that it
does not create any conflicts.
		 
		Thanks.
		Manisha

________________________________

		From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
		Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:13 PM
		To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
		Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1532
		
		
		The proposed BNF change unnecessarily breaks backward
compatibility.  One would no longer be able to write
		 
		     a = @s c;
		 
		for a sequence 's'.  Yet, by replacing
'sequence_instance' with 'ps_sequence_identifier' in 'event_control', as
suggested in Mantis on 7-11-2006, you could preserve this part of
backward compatibility and still address the easier-to-Yacc desire of
the erratum.
		 
	
http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001532
		 
		-- Brad

________________________________

		From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
		Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:19 AM
		To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
		Subject: [sv-ac] #1532
		
		
		Hi,
		 
		I have uploaded a proposal for #1532. 
		 
		Thanks.
		Manisha