RE: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate constructs in sequences and properties

Hello John,

I think that with or without the generate - endgenerate delimitation it
should be possible, because only definitions are allowed (not
expressions) in the generate blocks. What is your opinion?
ed 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 3:07 PM
> To: eduard.cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate 
> constructs in sequences and properties
> 
> Hi Ed:
> 
> I have not yet looked at the proposal.
> 
> However, from the first time I saw this idea 
> presented I worried a bit about collision between 
> the generates and my vision of adding "if-else"
> to sequences and adding "case" to both sequences
> and properties.
> 
> If the requirement to use "generate/endgenerate"
> keywords will still allow us to add these operators,
> I will be happier.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> > 
> > Is that what Note 1 in the proposal is trying to get at? --
> > 
> >    "1. As the syntax indicates, it is required to explicitly specify
> > generate block within the property.  Omitting could lead to a less
> > intuitive code."
> > 
> > So within properties, although it would not actually be ambiguous to
> > omit the generate-endgenerate, it could be confusing, and the same
> > syntactic restriction is applied to sequences for consistency with
> > properties?
> > 
> > -- Brad
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:edcerny@synopsys.COM] 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 3:44 AM
> > To: Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - 
> generate constructs
> > in sequences and properties
> > 
> > Generate endgenerate is there to distinguish property if 
> from generate
> > if.
> > 
> > Example can be added.
> > 
> > Ed
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>
> > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> > Sent: Fri Apr 06 14:21:38 2007
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - 
> generate constructs
> > in sequences and properties
> > 
> > What's the justification for requiring generate/endgenerate keywords
> > here, when they are optional in the rest of the language?
> > 
> > Also, it would be helpful if there were a realistic example of using
> > generate loops, in addition to the examples about 
> conditional generate.
> > 
> > -- Brad 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> > Eduard Cerny
> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:44 PM
> > To: Seligman, Erik
> > Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - 
> generate constructs
> > in sequences and properties
> > 
> >  Hello Erik,
> > 
> > Please find attached a corrected proposal. I did a few more
> > "adjustments" too. I have also deposited the proposal on Mantis.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > ed
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:17 PM
> > > To: Eduard Cerny
> > > Cc: Korchemny, Dmitry
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate 
> > > constructs in sequences and properties
> > > 
> > > Hi again--
> > > 
> > > I have a few minor comments/questions on this proposal as 
> well.  Hope 
> > > I'm not harassing you too much. :-)
> > > 
> > > - In sec 17.11.3, the last sentence you add reads
> > > 	"It is illegal to refer to locally declared properties of a
> > property 
> > > from the outside of the enclosing property."
> > > This seems kind of awkward, English-wise.   I think I could 
> > > interpret it
> > > to mean that a 2-deep locally declared property can be 
> referenced from
> > 
> > > an extra level up -- do we mean the "enclosing property" of the 
> > > sub-property, or of the original property?  Maybe rephrase with 
> > > something like:
> > > 	"If a property is declared within the scope of another property,
> > it 
> > > is illegal to refer to it outside the scope in which it 
> is declared."
> > > 
> > > - In the insert for 17.11.4, I think the example 
> weak_until property 
> > > has a clarity issue: 'p' is used both as an input, and as a 
> > > sub-property name.  The recursion in the second 
> sub-property may also 
> > > have an issue-- did we really want to recurse on the top-level 
> > > property rather than on the local sub-property?
> > > 
> > > - In the example at the end of this pdf, within property p1(s,p), 
> > > property prop_always is no longer recursive.  Is that really the 
> > > intent?
> > > Also, I think there's a typo below, where we refer to 
> > > "property_always"
> > > instead of "prop_always".
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 

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