RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time assert and error message tasks

 Hello,

I tried to take into account all the suggestions... Please see the
attached proposal, also deposited on mantis.

Best regards,

ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 5:58 PM
> To: Eduard Cerny
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> assert and error message tasks
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I've talked to a few people around here and we also don't see 
> a problem
> with using the existing language.  A tool could choose to evaluate
> immediate assertions that contain only constants at elab time without
> the need for the additional constructs in the language.  
> 
> Lisa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: Lisa Piper; Eduard Cerny
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> assert and
> error message tasks
> 
> To be frank I did not like either of the prefixes. Dave or Brad
> suggested to use the exiting names, e.g., $error, and if they are left
> standing outside procedural cotext after elaboration then execute them
> immediately. I contered by saying that they have more restrictions on
> the arguments, but we could do that with a note that in this 
> usage, only
> constant_expressions can be used.
> 
> ed
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:42 AM
> > To: Eduard Cerny
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> > assert and error message tasks
> > 
> > How about $elab_..
> > 
> > Lisa
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 9:36 AM
> > To: Lisa Piper; Eduard Cerny
> > Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> > assert and
> > error message tasks
> > 
> > Hi Lisa,
> > 
> > You are right, we should not assume "let", I will change the text
> > accordingly. 
> > 
> > About the names - what do you suggest? 
> > 
> > ed 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
> > > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 9:23 AM
> > > To: Eduard Cerny
> > > Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> > > assert and error message tasks
> > > 
> > > Hi Ed,
> > > 
> > > In this proposal, you should not assume the let_declaration 
> > > exists yet.
> > > It appears twice in the syntax section. I also think it would 
> > > be good to
> > > show the example of 1620.  
> > > 
> > > I see compile and elaboration as two distinct steps. This 
> > > says it is an
> > > elaboration-time check, but the names of the system tasks tend to
> > > suggest compile-time ($comp_...).  Why is this?
> > > 
> > > Lisa
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of
> > > Eduard Cerny
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:10 AM
> > > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: [sv-ac] New mantis item #1769 - elaboration-time 
> assert and
> > > error message tasks
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I have created a new mantis item and deposited a proposal for
> > > elaboration-time assertions and error tasks. Attached here too.
> > > 
> > > 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.