Re: [sv-ac] 1768 review

Hi All:

> By the way, I think that this is not really a new semantic concept.
> I think that we have the same semantic question of how "disable iff" 
> interacts with an all match evaluation of a sequence_expr under the 
> existing LRM.  For example, we can write a sequence_expr S that has 
> been instrumented with $display match items at the ends of various 
> subexpressions and ask which $displays execute for an attempt of
> 
>    assert property (disable iff (blah) S |-> 1'b1);
> 
> A precise definition of the semantics could be derived by a resolution
> of Mantis 0921.

After sending this it struck me that 

    assert property (disable iff (blah) S |-> 1'b1);

could be simplified to

    assert property (disable iff (blah) S |-> (1'b1, $display("hit")));
 
where S is not instrumented with any $display and ask how many 
$displays execute.

My point is really that the semantic concept is not new, even though
specifying the "disable iff" with the "cover sequence" is.

J.H.

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