RE: [sv-ac] vote for 1648

Hi,

 

I think we also need to choose a syntactic form so that this change is
only specific to assertions and does not sound generic. Dave Rich has
already suggested that. Is there a reason we do not want to do that ? To
be consistent with default clocking, it will be good if 'default
disable' is used for generic case and we have a syntactic variation for
assertions only (e.g. default property disable..). 

 

Thanks.

Manisha

 

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:28 AM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] vote for 1648

 

Hi,

 

I vote 'no'.  I feel 1757 needs to align to this proposal in some
places. Also, I do not feel very comfortable with the usage of term
"disable condition' for the expression used in disable iff, accept_on
and reject_on.  Semantically they produce different results so the
expression should also be called something different. I would prefer if
disable condition is used for disable iff and accept and reject
conditions use a different terminology. 

 

The last word in the following sentence does not look correct.

 

However, if a nested module, interface, or program declaration itself
has a

default disable declaration, then that default disable applies within
the nested declaration and overrides any

default disable from without.

 

Thanks.

Manisha


-- 
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.