Re: [sv-ac] Vote for 1567

All:

My sense is that the discrepency between Section 22 and Annex A
is not specific to the problem addressed by mantis item 1567.  
The mantis 1567 resolution improves the self-consistency of Section 22.

We may want to recommend as a separate effort to make Section 22
better aligned with the system_tf_call syntax of Annex A.8.2.

J.H.

> 
> Bassam,
> 
> I would have liked section 22 to reference to the A.8.2 BNF syntax
> rather than make a virtual (namely not in Annex A) BNF syntax.
> 
> Anycase this is not needed because I see the "not in Annex A" all over
> the LRM. This adds room for confusion.
> 
> I vote Yes.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Hillel Miller>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:11 PM
> To: Miller Hillel-R53776; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>