RE: [sv-ac] 928

I guess I missed what Bassam meant by "this form". I thought that he
referred to the one Surrendra wrote. Or which one...?

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Surrendra Dudani
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:53 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928
> 
> Hi Bassam,
> expr does not include event_expr, so one is not able to specify event
> expression as default argument.
> Surrendra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:bassamt@synopsys.COM] 
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:25 AM
> To: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928
> 
> Hi Surrendra,
> 
> Right now it is much like tf_port_list's default init. Unless it is
> missing something in my opinion this form is better.
> 
> THX. 
> -Bassam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>
> To: sv-ac@eda.org <sv-ac@eda.org>
> Sent: Fri Jan 26 06:25:07 2007
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928
> 
> Hi Lisa/Bassam,
> Thanks for the answers.
> Yes, you are right about the (1). sequence_instance is indeed included
> in event-expresion.
> For (2),
> Would it not be consistent to allow actual arg as the 
> default, as shown
> below?
>  
> 
> property_port_item ::=
> { attribute_instance }
> property_formal_type
> port_identifier {variable_dimension} [=property_actual_arg] 
> 
> sequence_port_item ::=
> { attribute_instance }
> sequence_formal_type
> port_identifier {variable_dimension} [=sequence_actual_arg] 
> 
> Surrendra
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:14 PM
> To: Surrendra Dudani; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 928
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Surrendra,
> 
>  
> 
> I have tried to answer the questions, though I'm not sure I understand
> the second question.
> 
>  
> 
> Lisa Piper
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Surrendra Dudani
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] 928
> 
>  
> 
> Hi John/Dmitry, 
> I was looking at mantis item 928 which was passed last year, and need
> the following clarifications: 
> 1) Unlike property actual argument, 
> property_actual_arg::= 
>         property_instance 
>         | sequence_actual_arg 
> 
> sequence actual argument does not include sequence_instance 
> sequence_actual_arg ::= 
>         event_expression 
> 
> [Lisa Piper >>>] if you look at the definition of event_expression, it
> already includes a sequence instance.
> 
> 2) The default argument for either property or sequence declaration is
> expression rather than actual sequence/property expression
> 
> property_port_item ::= 
> { attribute_instance } 
> property_formal_type 
> port_identifier {variable_dimension} [=expression] 
> 
> sequence_port_item ::= 
> { attribute_instance } 
> sequence_formal_type 
> port_identifier {variable_dimension} [=expression] 
> 
> [Lisa Piper >>>] If I understand the question correctly, you are
> questioning how an "expression" can be a default value when 
> the argument
> that is passed is a sequence or property.  I think the intent is:
> 
>             define property ( reg x=<expr> ) .....  which 
> says that the
> default value for argument x is <expr>
> 
> Currently you cannot have a property or sequence argument type since
> these are not yet defined as a sequence_formal_types, and in 
> fact, while
> they can be passed untyped, you can only pass an instance.  I 
> think the
> 1549 proposal that suggests adding these will need to address 
> whether it
> makes sense to be able to define an initializer.
> 
> Thanks 
> Surrendra 
> **************************************** 
> Surrendra A. Dudani 
> Synopsys, Inc. 
> 377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300 
> Marlboro, MA 01752 
> 
> Tel:   508-263-8072 
> Fax:   508-263-8123 
> email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com  
> **************************************** 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner 
> <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
> 
> believed to be clean. 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner 
> <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
> 
> believed to be clean. 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.