Re: [sv-ac] Mantis 1682: new proposal for Next-value functions

Hi Ed,

my comments below:

1. Current definition of all other function return a 4 state variable

  e.g.  $isrising(expression) has the same effect as
        !lsb(expression)&& $nextvalue(lsb(expression)).

  so if "a" is X in the current cycle and 1 in the next cycle, then
  the result of $isrising(a) is Z. I recommend using the same language
  as in the definition of $rose etc.

2. I don't understand the sentences :
    "In formal tools the next value is the sampled value at the next 
global clocking tick. Therefore,
     to maintain consistency between simulation and formal tools, when a 
variable is updated it should happen
     before the next global clocking tick."

3. This is only a matter of style but "immediate" may be confused with 
immediate assertions. Global with _g is may be better?

Doron


Eduard Cerny wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have deposited a new proposal for next-value functions that tries to
> address various concerns regarding the time when the value is sampled
> and which clock is the default clock. It defines a new class of
> sampled-value functions, past and future, that run only on global
> clocking.
>
> Best regards,
> 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.