RE: [sv-ac] passing constant value in actual argument

Hi Surya,
 
except that for assertions, there is no way to state the requirement on
compile time constant. The argument is interpreted only when the actual
is known and substituted.
 
ed
 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Surya Pratik Saha
	Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:09 AM
	To: Eduard Cerny
	Cc: Soumya Jyoti Wadader; sv-ac@eda.org
	Subject: Re: [sv-ac] passing constant value in actual argument
	
	
	Hi ED,
	I don't agree your statement. With consecutive_repetition
operator, only constant expression is allowed. But 'n' is not a constant
expression. If an argument is allowed, then LRM should mention that, as
it mentioned for coverage group open range list.
	See LRM section: 18.4 Defining coverage points
	
	The open_range_list used to specify the set of values associated
with a bin shall be constant expressions, instance constants (for
classes only), or non-ref arguments to the coverage group.
	
	Similar type of statement should be given for
consecutive_repetition operator too.
	
	Regards
	Surya.


	Eduard Cerny wrote: 

		In my view it is a vlaid definition and instance. The
actual parameters
		are  substituted and then checked.
		
		ed
		
		  

			-----Original Message-----
			From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
			Behalf Of Soumya Jyoti Wadader
			Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:06 AM
			To: sv-ac@eda.org
			Subject: [sv-ac] passing constant value in
actual argument 
			
			Hi , 
			     I have a quary regarding passing argument .
			
			Please consider this case:
			
			sequence seq(a, b, n);
			!a ##1 a[*n] ##1 b[*n];
			endsequence
			
			property p1;
			@(posedge clk)
			(reset ##1 !reset)|=> seq(out[1], out[2], 2);
			endproperty
			
			assert property (p1);
			
			Is it a valid case? my doubt is  in sequence
expression of 
			the sequnce 
			'seq' 'n' should be constant, in this case 'n'
is getting 
			constant value 
			from the actual argument in property expression,
so this is valid 
			case,am I correct? Please comment on my
understanding from LRM.
			
			Thanks
			Soumya