Re: [sv-ac] revised 1698

Hi Ed:

I forgot to add a sentence about this.

I just uploaded a revised version that adds the sentence

   All variables referenced in the actual argument expressions passed
   to these functions shall be static.

J.H.
  

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:51:48 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] revised 1698
> Thread-Index: Achz3xwTRxI/g1uSSK2k9HIZ6em/9AAAaB1Q
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2008 16:51:49.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2A8A1F0:01C873E0]
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> What did we decide at the end about the kind of variables that can be
> used in the expressions (re the access through virtual interface)? Or we
> just leave it as is for now?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> John
> > Havlicek
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:04 AM
> > To: sv-ac@eda.org
> > Subject: [sv-ac] revised 1698
> >=20
> > Hi Folks:
> >=20
> > I have revised 1698 and posted on Mantis.
> >=20
> > I addressed most of the friendly amendments.  In particular, I got
> > rid of the condition about "maximal expression" and istead wrote
> >=20
> >    The event expression is of the form edge_identifier expression1 [
> iff
> >    expression2] and is not a proper subexpression of an event
> >    expression of this form
> >=20
> > I think this is simpler and should be easier for most people to
> > understand.
> >=20
> > Manisha asked for an example, so I added a statement after the example
> > in which "posedge clock iff reset =3D=3D 0" is inferred to explain =
> that
> > "posedge clock" is not inferred because it is a proper subexpression
> > of "posedge clock iff reset =3D=3D 0".
> >=20
> > Tom wanted back the sentece about sampled being updated in the
> > Preponed, but I did not put it back because, as I explained, these
> > are function rather than data objects, so we should not talk about
> > them being "updated".
> >=20
> > I reworked the sentence about value change functions comparing sampled
> > values to address Tom's criticism.  I think it's better than it was
> > before.  Tom -- if this is still not good enough, please provide a
> > specific suggestion to rewrite it.  The motivation for writing it this
> > way is to have a clear statement of the semantics that makes sense to
> > someone thinking about a function call outside assertions.
> >=20
> > There were a few other criticisms from Tom about the wording that did
> > not have specific suggestions for rewrites.  I did not change these.
> > Tom -- if they need to be changed, then please provide specific
> > suggestions.
> >=20
> > J.H.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > --
> > 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.