RE: [sv-ac] usage of .triggered on a sequence

I thnk that the behavior of when triggered becomes false is the same as
for regular events, if nothing else is said why to suspect otherwise?  
ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Bromley
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 3:28 AM
> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] usage of .triggered on a sequence
> 
> Manisha,
>  
> For regular events (which also have a .triggered method) the 
> situation is fairly clear: 
> E.triggered becomes true (value 1'b1 of type bit) when the 
> event is emitted, and becomes
> false at the end of the timestep, that is, on exit from the 
> Postponed region.  User code
> has no access to that, so it is completely safe for user code 
> (and PLI) to assume that
> E.triggered remains true throughout the timeslot and is false 
> at the beginning of the
> next timeslot, whenever that next timeslot may be.
>  
> I would imagine that the behaviour of SEQ.triggered should be 
> analogous.  Certainly,
> I have written code that relies on such behaviour, and it 
> *seems* to work :-)
>  
> Since <anything>.triggered is just an expression of type bit, 
> there is presumably no 
> difficulty in waiting for or testing its inverse.  The 
> semantics of wait(!E.triggered) are 
> a little bizarre,  though...  continue execution without 
> delay if E.triggered is false, 
> otherwise wait until simulation time advances...  
> 
> 	Currently LRM only has examples where .triggered 
> property is checked for its positive value. E.g.
> 	  wait (s0.triggered) or if (s0.triggered)
> 	 
> 	Is it allowed to check for the negative value of 
> .triggered ? E.g.
> 	  wait (s0.triggered == 0) or  if (s0.triggered == 0)
> 	 
> 	It is clear in the LRM when the value of .triggered 
> becomes 1 (in Observe region) but there is no clarity on when 
> it becomes 0 (i.e. in which region ?).
> 	 
> 	If checking for value 0 is allowed, when should a wait 
> statement should unblock ?
> 
>  
> Regards
>  
> Jonathan Bromley
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 anddangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.
> 
> 

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