RE: [sv-ac] non-urgency of 1668

Yes, of course. It should have been: 

property q(w);
    (w, w = !w) |-> b ##1 w ##1 c;
endproperty

property p;
    bit v;
    (a, v = a) |=> q(v);
endproperty

assert property (@(posedge clk) p);

is equivalent to (I am using pseudo syntax here):

assert property (@(posedge clk) ( bit v: (a, v = a) |=> (v, v 
= !v) |-> b ##1 v ##1 c));

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:20 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] non-urgency of 1668

I think that you need a formal arg v in q and then pass the actual v t o
the instance of q.
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:46 AM
> To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] non-urgency of 1668
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> It highly depends on the parameter passing semantics. If we adopt the
> substitution semantics, then the meaning of passing a local variable
> will be slightly different. E.g.,
> 
> property q;
>     (v, v = !v) |-> b ##1 v ##1 c;
> endproperty
> 
> property p;
>     bit v;
>     (a, v = a) |=> q;
> endproperty
> 
> assert property (@(posedge clk) p);
> 
> is equivalent to (I am using pseudo syntax here):
> 
> assert property (@(posedge clk) ( bit v: (a, v = a) |=> (v, v 
> = !v) |->
> b ##1 v ##1 c));
> 
> 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, March 09, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] non-urgency of 1668
> 
> Hi All:
> 
> In our last meeting, we decided that 1668 is not urgent.
> 
> I have thought some more about this and realized that 
> more of 1667 than just assignments in the formal argument
> list is dependent on 1668.
> 
> Indeed, the basic semantics of binding an actual argument 
> expression to a local variable formal argument will be the 
> same as a similar local variable declaration assignment, as in
> the current sketch for 1667:
> 
>    property p(local <type> v, ...);
>       ...
>    endproperty
> 
>    ...
> 
>    p(.v(e),...)
> 
> should have the same semantics as
> 
>    property p(<type> v1, ...);
>       <type> v = v1;
>       ...
>    endproperty
> 
>    ...
> 
>    p(.v1(e),...)
> 
> 
> It is clear to me that for 1667 we do not want a restriction 
> that says that e must be a constant expression.
> 
> So, I am of the mind now that we really do need to make 
> progress to converge on 1668 before I can do anything with
> 1667.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> J.H.
> 
> -- 
> 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.