RE: [sv-ac] Checker construct proposal: any comments yet?

Hi,

One could introduce a new operator as well, instead of a new system
function. Note that this operator will have variable arity, such as a
concatenation operator {} or operators "inside" or "dist". If to use an
operator construct, then it is more intuitive to introduce an operator
having a meaningful name like undet. This is very similar to a system
function, but requires adding one more keyword.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:03 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Checker construct proposal: any comments yet?


Hi Brad--  Thanks for taking a look.

Yes, you're correct that it's not a formal proposal that could be added
to the LRM yet.  Because this is a relatively complex new feature, we
wanted to start with a basic document that describes the concept, so we
could begin gathering comments. 

Dmitry, Ed-- comments on the operator idea mentioned below for $nondet?



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:06 AM
To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Checker construct proposal: any comments yet?

Erik,

An enhancement proposal will usually get more feedback if it is also
distributed on the reflector, instead of just uploaded to Mantis, so
I've attached a copy of your current version.

Your document is not in the form of a formal proposal, but apparently it
would add new keywords 'checker' and 'endchecker', plus a new system
function $notdet() for making a nondeterminstic choice between
arguments.

Is a system function the best syntax for the latter capability?  Why not
add a true operator like |~| for internal choice?

Also, I don't think it would be a good idea to add comments like the
following to the LRM

  "A free variable appears only in checkers, and thus should never be
synthesized into silicon."

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Seligman, Erik
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:17 AM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Checker construct proposal: any comments yet?


Hi all--

Just wanted to send a reminder to take a look at this new proposal, on
'checker' constructs, when you get the chance:
	http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=1900

This is a relatively major language enhancement, so it might be good to
start discussion going so we can begin revising it & converge in a
reasonable time frame.  I suspect there will be many questions and
issues.

Thanks!

--
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.