RE: [sv-ac] 2005

But then aren't you saying that we still need the original language to
cover all cases?  

 

________________________________

From: Bustan, Doron 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:00 PM
To: Seligman, Erik; Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 2005

 

I would not change the function, but  for every function call that is
not in a procedural block (like "assign a = test_1(b);", 

I will refer to it as "always_comb a = test_1(b);"

 

Doron

 

________________________________

From: Seligman, Erik 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:29 PM
To: Bustan, Doron; Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 2005

 

>I was thinking of putting the assignments without clocking event
including assignment to  functions inside always_comb and not the other
way around

 

I don't quite understand.  How would the function below be rewritten?

 

function bit test_1(bit x, y);

   test_1  = (x == y);

  a1: assert property (x == y);

endfunction


-- 
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 <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.