Re: [sv-ac] Vote for 1567

I vote Yes.

Hillel, my comments were meant to support the proposal. Section 22's productions are NOT in Annex A BNF. They are an instance of system_tf_call see A.8.2 so no semicolon.

THX. 
-Bassam

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
CC: Miller Hillel-R53776 <r53776@freescale.com>
Sent: Thu Nov 30 06:38:12 2006
Subject: [sv-ac] Vote for 1567

 
Hi,

I vote no.

What is the resolution for Bassam's statement?

The semicolon is required if the BNF does not support "at same level of
statement". 

If the BNF does this then this needs to be removed from the LRM so there
is no redundancy.

Thanks
Hillel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bassam Tabbara
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:32 PM
To: Havlicek John-r8aaau; Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] proposal for mantis 1567

Hi John,

I think the section 22 syntax is for (instances of) system_tf_call which
is at same level of statement.

The BNF does not list these instances of system_tf_call while 22 does.

THX. 
-Bassam

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
To: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>
CC: john.havlicek@freescale.com <john.havlicek@freescale.com>;
sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
Sent: Tue Nov 28 06:33:59 2006
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] proposal for mantis 1567

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.
> 
>