RE: [sv-ac] question on goto operator

In the LRM (Annex F) it is defined as

w \tight R [*0] iff |w| = 0.

 

A property b[->0] (same as b[*0]) is true regardless the value of b.

 

If you need it to define the endpoint of the evaluation attempt, then we
should be aligned with the definition of the endpoints of b[*0:$]. Do we
have such a definition for it?

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:58 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] question on goto operator

 

At what point can you decide it is true?  

 

Lisa

 

________________________________

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:42 AM
To: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] question on goto operator

 

Hi Lisa,

 

Since b[->k] is (!b[*0:$] ##1 b)[*k], b[->0] should be (!b[*0:$] ##1
b)[*0]. i.e., the same as b[*0], which matches the empty word only. It
looks to me that there is no need to forbid this case. Of course, I
don't think that anybody will explicitly write this, but in a
parameterized sequence it may happen, e.g.

 

sequence b_after_nth_a(a, b, n);

            a[->n] ##1 b;

endsequence

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Piper
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] question on goto operator

 

Hi all,

I have a question.  Does it make sense to have a repetition of 0 in the
goto operator? If so, when is it true?

 

Ex:     b[->1]     is     (!b ##1 b)   and it is true when b=1,

 

If the repetition value is 0, when is it true?  PSL has this same
operator but it limits the repetition value to a positive number.

Lisa


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

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