Re: [sv-ac] proposal for mantis 1567

From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek_at_.....>
Date: Tue Nov 28 2006 - 06:33:59 PST
Hi Bassam:

I see your point.

Do you know why Section 22 defines syntax that is analogous
to subroutine_call_statement rather than to subroutine_call
for the system tasks?

J.H.

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:55:14 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] proposal for mantis 1567
> Thread-Index: AccSWZMbB5OVNJU2Qy6+OjXnvKCvlwABBzUg
> From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2006 19:55:16.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5B29B10:01C7125D]
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> From a quick skim I think it is covered by "subroutine_call" itself from
> below, since from A.8.2:
> 
> system_tf_call ::=3D system_tf_identifier [ ( list_of_arguments ) ]
> | system_tf_identifier ( data_type [ , expression ] )
> 
> subroutine_call ::=3D tf_call
> | system_tf_call
> ...
> 
> Thx.
> -Bassam.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of John
> Havlicek
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:08 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] proposal for mantis 1567
> 
> All:
> 
> I uploaded the (easy) proposal to fix 1567.  The fix was already in the
> problem description.
> 
> I did notice something in Section 22 that set off some warning flags,
> though.
> 
> The syntax of system tasks described in Section 22 requires the ending
> semicolon, so that the syntax forms a statement.
> 
> When we attach subroutine calls to sequences, we do not put the ending
> semicolon. =20
> 
> I had assumed that the system task syntax would be analogous to the
> user-defined task syntax, which uses the production
> 
>    subroutine_call_statement ::=3D
>        subroutine_call ;
>      | void ' ( function_subroutine_call ) ;
> 
> So it seems that Section 22 doesn't define the analog of subroutine_call
> for the system tasks and functions.
> 
> I think we all know what to do, but is this an LRM problem that needs to
> be fixed?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John H.
> 
> 
Received on Tue Nov 28 06:34:09 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 28 2006 - 06:34:36 PST