RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1900

Sorry I didn't think it is possible to have a property defined at global
scope so I guess there is no problem with this example.

Thanks,
Yaniv


-----Original Message-----
From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 16:55
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Fais Yaniv; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1900

Is it really an issue with that example?

If I understand right, it's possible to have prop_declared_elsewhere be
a property defined in the global scope, in which it would be available
regardless.  

Unless the point of the example is the scoping rules, I don't think the
source needs to be explicit.  We have it clearly stated that such things
are inherited from the declaring context, which as Shalom mentioned, is
the same for various other language constructs.  Why do we need more?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:49 AM
To: Fais Yaniv; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1900

Actually, I'm very confused about it myself. I would not regard my
previous answer as being authoritive.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fais Yaniv [mailto:yaniv.fais@freescale.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:57 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1900
> 
> 
> Hi Shalom,
> 
> I agree with you that this is consistent with other constructs of the 
> language however checkers can be declared also outside of a module as 
> in the example on page 8 of the proposal:
> 
> 	checker my_check (test_sig, clock);
> 		  default clocking @clock;
> 		  a1: assert property
> (prop_declared_elsewhere(test_sig));
> 		  c1: cover property (!test_sig ##1 test_sig);
> 	endchecker : my_check
> 	module m(logic rst);
> 		wire clk;
> 		logic a, en;
> 		wire b = a && en;
> 		// Checker instantiation outside of procedural code
> 		check check_outside(b, clk);
>         ...
> 
> Based on these examples I imagined other scoping rules (where 
> "prop_declared_elsewhere" appears somewhere inside the
> module) but if I was wrong then simply those examples needs to be 
> fixed - they can work only if you define the checker inside another 
> scope (module).
> 
> Yaniv
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 22:23
> To: Fais Yaniv; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1900
> 
> Yaniv,
> 
> > * page 8: it is mentioned:
> > "Variables used in a checker that are neither formal
> arguments to the
> > checker nor internal variables of the checker are resolved
> according
> > to the scoping rules from the scope in which the checker is
> declared."
> > Don't you mean where the checker is *instantiated* instead
> of declared
> 
> > ?
> 
> No. "declared" is correct. This is consistent with other constructs of

> the language.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for 
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution 
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--
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, and is
believed to be clean.