RE: [sv-ac] 1549 questions

Hi,

 

I agree with Lisa on (1).

For (2) I think it is not clear in the current document and should be
made clear. I do not see any specific statement about what Lisa is
saying.

 

Manisha

 

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Piper
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:52 AM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1549 questions

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of John
Havlicek
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:00 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] 1549 questions

 

Hi Folks:

 

I am working on editing the Annex F changes for 1549.

 

I am leaning towards replacing $var with $item.  My rationale is that we
say

that this function allows operations that are allowed on a declared item
of the

same type.  Manisha suggested using something with "implicit" in it.  I
thought

that would make the name too long.  But the idea of implicit is
intuitive to me

in the sense of an implicit declaration of the item.

 

I have come across some cases that I'm not sure we have thought through

carefully yet.  I don't think there is anything broken, but we may need
to think

about some more explanations and definitions.  Given the remaining time,
we may

want to be conservative about adding capabilities.

 

1. Can event, sequence, or property be used as casting types in user
written code?

   Under what circumstances?

[Lisa Piper >>>] No - for example, you cannot always cast a property to
a sequence. A property can be a sequence, so there is no need to cast
it. I think you should keep it simple and say no casting.

 

2. What are the type matching, compatibility, etc. rules for these new
types?

[Lisa Piper >>>] I thought it was already stated that a property can
accept a property, sequence or boolean and a sequence can accept a
sequence or boolean.  An event should only accept a boolean that is used
a part of an event expression.

 

3. Do we intend to allow a compound sequence expression actual argument
to be

   passed to a formal argument, untyped or typed "sequence" or "event",
that stands 

   in the place of an event_expression in a clocking event?  E.g.

 

   

      sequence foo (event e);

         @(e) a ##1 b;

      endsequence

 

      foo (.e(@(c) d[*2]));

 

      sequence bar(sequence s);

         a ##1 b[*2] ##1 s.ended;

      endsequence

 

      bar(c ##1 d);

[Lisa Piper >>>] I think so. The default takes a sequence expression.

 

 

J.H.

 

-- 

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 <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.