Re: [sv-ac] local vars as actual arguments

Dmitry,

I think that my example

property p1;
logic [7:0] lv;

(1, lv = 1) ##1                        // lv = 1
  (1, lv = 1 + 1) ##1                  // lv = 2
  (1, lv = (lv > 3) ? 1+1 : 1-1);      // lv = 0
 ##1 (lv == 0) ;                       // p pass
endproperty

works like functions in c and other programing languages and has a meaning.

Doron






Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:

>Hi Doron,
>
>I think that passing local variable by value is problematic. I would
>interpret it in your example as:
>
>property p1;
>logic [7:0] lv;
>
>(1, lv = 1) ##1                        
>  (1, 1 = 1 + 1) ##1                  
>  (1, 1 = (1 > 3) ? 1+1 : 1-1);      
> ##1 (lv == 0) ;                   
>endproperty
>
>which is meaningless.
>
>Thanks,
>Dmitry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
>Behalf Of Doron Bustan
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:21 PM
>To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
>Subject: [sv-ac] local vars as actual arguments
>
>Hi,
>
>
>last meeting I took an action item to review passing local variables
>as actual arguments to sequences, who in their turn are passed as
>actual arguments to other sequences.
>
>It looks that as long as all local variables in the different
>sequences have different names, an approach based on substitution
>will work.
>
>However, it is not clear that substitution is consistent with
>the way local variables are being considered as actual arguments. The
>LRM does not make it clear whether local variable are passed by value
>or by substitution. To understand the differences, look at the
>following example:
>
>sequence r1(lv1, lv2);
>  (1, lv1 = lv1 + 1) ##1
>  (1, lv1 = (lv1 > 3) ? lv2+1 : lv2-1);
>endsequence
>
>property p1;
>logic [7:0] lv;
>
>(1, lv = 1) ##1 r1(lv, lv) ##1 (lv == 0) ;
>endproperty
>
>When we take the substitution approach, we have
>that p1 is equivalent to:
>
>property p1;
>logic [7:0] lv;
>
>(1, lv = 1) ##1                        // lv = 1
>  (1, lv = lv + 1) ##1                 // lv = 2
>  (1, lv = (lv > 3) ? lv+1 : lv-1);    // lv = 1
> ##1 (lv == 0) ;                       // p fails
>endproperty
>
>
>When we take the pass by value approach, we have
>that p1 is equivalent to:
>
>property p1;
>logic [7:0] lv;
>
>(1, lv = 1) ##1                        // lv = 1
>  (1, lv = 1 + 1) ##1                  // lv = 2
>  (1, lv = (lv > 3) ? 1+1 : 1-1);      // lv = 0
> ##1 (lv == 0) ;                       // p pass
>endproperty
>
>
>At least in sv-ac discussion, we did refer to passing
>local variables as actual argument as "pass by value.
>
>I think that we need to discuss the  differences,
>and see if it is ok to continue with the substitution.
>
>Doron
>  
>