RE: [sv-ac] reminder to vote on mantis 1550

I'd agree with that.
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:01 PM
> To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] reminder to vote on mantis 1550
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I agree with you that we don't have to specify which value 
> will $sampled
> function return at time 0 in this proposal: it should return the value
> from the preponed region. If there are problems with the variable
> initialization definition they should be handled in the clause
> describing the simulation semantics. As Dave mentioned, the 
> definitions
> should be ideally handled in the same place. We can add a reference to
> this clause here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com;
> sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] reminder to vote on mantis 1550
> 
> Hi Ed:
> 
> I don't think we are complicating anything.
> 
> I think that the preponed value of an expression in the time 0 slot 
> is already defined by the scheduling algorithm.
> 
> So you should be able to delete this text entirely and just say
> that for _every_ time slot, a call to $sampled in that time slot
> returns the preponed value of its argument in that time slot.
> 
> If you say that in the time 0 slot $sampled follows a different rule,
> then that is complicating things.
> 
> Try this thought experiment.  Suppose that there is an expression e 
> that combines some static variables with declaration assignments.  
> Suppose that no assignment in the time 0 slot changes these
> variables.  Should a call to $sampled(e) in the time 0 slot yield
> a different result than a call to $sampled(e) in the time 1 slot?
> 
> My opinion is "no".
> 
> J.H.
> 
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:43:00 -0800
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] reminder to vote on mantis 1550
> > Thread-Index: AcdAxdG186prUgy2SBOcNKMORR/kCAAA4F8A
> > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> > Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2007 21:43:01.0498 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[C967DDA0:01C740C9]
> > 
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > This is exactly what I wanted to avoid, having to evaluate the
> > expression based on the initial assigned and default 
> values. I.e., in
> > the case of an expression, just use the default value of 
> its type. But
> > if the majority thinks that it is more appropriate to do wht you
> > suggest, fine. But we are here dealing with a corner case, 
> because in
> > most applications, a disable iff  or $assertoff takes care 
> of time 0.
> Is
> > it worth complicating it?
> > 
> > ed
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 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.