Arturo, Except that the modport will have clocking with the properties, but not the assertions. These would have to be either in the module / program that use the modport or in the interface. There is no control over which assertions should be associated with which modport in latter case. ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Arturo Salz [mailto:salz@synopsys.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:01 PM > To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM > Cc: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; Dave_Rich@mentor.com; > piper@cadence.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review > > John, > > I have a faint memory that the reason we allowed assertions > in clocking > blocks was to allow a group of assertions to included as part of an > interface modport. So the intent was to enable users to instantiate > assertions in asymmetrical interfaces, in which only certain modports > might contain have assertions or different sets of assertions. Perhaps > there are other issues that prevent this methodology, but I seem to > recall that this was the original intent. > > Arturo > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On > Behalf Of John > Havlicek > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:11 PM > To: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM > Cc: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; Dave_Rich@mentor.com; > john.havlicek@freescale.com; Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM; > piper@cadence.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1547 review > > Hi Bassam: > > I agree that we should not remove the capability to put > sequence/property declarations within a clocking block. > > My point is that if there is no need to put sequence/property > declarations in a clocking block, then I can live with not > being able to put assertion directives in a clocking block. > I would just advise people not to put any assertion item in > a clocking block. > > J.H. > > > x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 > > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > > X-Former-Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:41:44 -0800 > > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 1547 review > > Thread-Index: AcdV7CCwFFVEyTCMTI2btShcUa2wggAAvSwQAAAnnBAAACdRIA== > > From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com> > > Cc: <Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com>, <piper@cadence.com>, > <sv-ac@eda-stds.org> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2007 19:41:44.0814 (UTC) > FILETIME=[515140E0:01C755F0] > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > We shouldn't. I think the point is no need to put asserts > in there as > proposal. > > > > THX. > > -Bassam > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eduard Cerny <edcerny@synopsys.COM> > > To: Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>; john.havlicek@freescale.com > <john.havlicek@freescale.com> > > CC: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; > piper@cadence.com <piper@cadence.com>; sv-ac@eda-stds.org > <sv-ac@eda-stds.org> > > Sent: Wed Feb 21 11:37:51 2007 > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review > > > > But the LRM already allows sequences and properties to be in cb. Can > we > > remove them now? > > ed > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On > > > Behalf Of Rich, Dave > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:34 PM > > > To: john.havlicek@freescale.com > > > Cc: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM; piper@cadence.com; > sv-ac@eda-stds.org > > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review > > > > > > > > > > > It may be that there is no point in putting sequence or property > > > > declarations in a clocking block, in which case this proposal > > > > would be unnecessary. > > > > > > > > J.H. > > > > > > > [DR>] That was my point. > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Feb 21 13:19:05 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 21 2007 - 13:19:09 PST