FW: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals

I agree with Brad. What do other people think?

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Pierce [mailto:Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:11 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC
proposals

Dmitry,

Another option with 'free' is to use

     freevar

Instead of

     free checkvar

-- Brad

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:11 PM
To: Steven Sharp; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@eda.org;
sv-ec@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals

Hi all,

Adding any new keyword brings potential backward compatibility problems.
I can just mention that introducing "priority" keyword required changing
our every second design, therefore this is feasible. As I can understand
from the feedback I saw, the most problematic keywords are "next" and
"free". The suggestion I prefer is to rename "next" to "nexttime", maybe
"free" can also be renamed into something like "nondet". I suggest we
discuss this at the next SV-AC meeting first, and then we can send the
new keywords to other committees for review.

Thanks,
Dmitry 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Steven Sharp
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:52 PM
To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@server.eda.org;
sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals


>From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>

>I am very concerned about some of the proposed new keywords,
specifically: 
>
>  checker, free, global, implies, let, next, restrict, strong, until,
weak
>
>These are common English words that are likely to be in use as
identifiers
>in existing code.

I have tried compiling a suite of 88 customer designs with these
keywords reserved in our parser.  18 (or 20%) fail to compile.  This
figure may be somewhat low, since some of these testcases appear to have
been run through obfuscators before being given to us.

The offending keywords were:

next:		7 testcases
free:		7 testcases
global:		4 testcases
checker:	1 testcase
weak:		1 testcase

Note that the numbers do not add up to 18 testcases, because some
testcases failed with conflicts on more than one keyword.

Also note that 'next' is particularly problematic, since it is already
used as an identifier in a built-in method in SV.  One of these customer
tests was SV and ran into this issue.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.