RE: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2089

Hi Tom,

 

Please, see my comments below.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM [mailto:Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:20 PM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2089

 

Hi Dmitry,

I have made the following changes to 2089 in response to the feedback:

1.  I have made the following change to the definition of checker body:


Action blocks of assertions within a checker will be referred to as
checker action blocks, and the rest of the checker, with the exception
of any final block code, will be referred to as checker body. 



[Korchemny, Dmitry] 1. "final procedure" should be used instead of
"final block". "final block" is also mentioned at the bottom of page 3.

 

2. It is written in the checker proposal (page 9):

"A checker body may contain the following elements:

*      Declaration of let, sequences, properties and functions.

*      Concurrent assertions. 

*      Checker variables and their assignments (see 16.18.5).

*      Default clocking and disable declarations.

*      initial_check and always_check procedures (see 16.18.4).

*      Generate blocks, containing any of the above elements."

 

and there is no mention of final procedures here.

 

3. It is written in the checker proposal (page 9):

"Each formal argument used in this way may be assigned a value either in
a checker body or in checker action blocks." This sentence needs to be
modified to allow assigning the output argument value in final
procedures as well.

 

2.  To clarify that variable declaration that appear within a final
block are local to the final block, I have added the following:


Any variables defined within final procedures obey all the normal scope
rules (see 22.8).

 

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Usually the common rules are not repeated for
special cases in the LRM. I would modify an example on page 13 from the
checker proposal to:

 

checker c;

            // Illegal: non-checker variables shall not be declared in a
checker body

            bit a;

            ...

            final begin

                        checkvar bit b1; // Illegal: checker variable
not in a checker body

                        bit b2;   // OK

                        ...

            end

endchecker : c


3.  I think I have fixed some of the font problems, but other instances
may still be lurking.  I have attached both the Word document and the
PDF.



[Korchemny, Dmitry] PDF looks fine now.


Is this sufficient?

 

[Korchemny, Dmitry] It is written in the 2089 proposal (page 1): "-
final procedure, encapsulating immediate assertions or display
statements, for reporting status at the end of simulation.", but the
final procedures in checkers may contain any stuff that the final
procedures in modules can, and not only immediate assertions and display
statements. This is only a suggested usage.

 
Tom

John Havlicek wrote: 

Hi Folks:
 
Our ballot on 2089 failed due to negative vote.
 
See the results below.
 
J.H.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Ballot on Mantis 2089
 
- Called on 2007-12-20, final ballots due by 2007-12-30 T 23:59-08:00.
 
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
yv[xxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
(Synopsys)     
 n[--------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani
(Synopsys)
yv[xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
(Freescale)
 t[xx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek
(Freescale - Chair)
nv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny
(Intel - Co-Chair)
 v[xxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha
(Mentor Graphics)
 n[----------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor
Graphics)
 n[-------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson
(Jasper)
 n[-------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller
(Freescale)
 v[xxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
yv[xxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman
(Intel)
 n[-----x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor
Graphics)
yv[xxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara
(Synopsys)
yv[xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun
Microsystems)
   |----------------------------------------------- attendance on
2007-12-18
 |------------------------------------------------- voting eligibility
for this ballot
|-------------------------------------------------- email ballots
received
 
        Legend:
                x = attended
                - = missed
                r = represented
                . = not yet a member
                v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4 overall)
                n = not a valid voter
                t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Rationale for Negative Vote
 
[DK]
 
* A refinement of "checker body" is needed. Currently "checker body" is
defined as everything in the checker except of assertion action blocks.
Apparently, final procedure imposes different limitations than other
stuff from "checker body" does. This also includes the argument passing:
if a formal argument is used in a final procedure, a corresponding
actual argument cannot depend on checker variables, etc.=20
* Do you want to make a declaration of regular variables legal in
checkers since they may be used in final procedures, or shall they
remain illegal, and the variables used in final procedures should be
declared there locally (I prefer the latter option)? This needs to be
explicitly mentioned.
* Friendly amendment: The new text should be in Times New Roman, and not
in Arial (page 3).
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Friendly Amendments
 
[BT]
 
- Add pointer to 2182 for VPI
- Remove mention of VPI "may need change" -- "final" is covered in
"process"
 
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.