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

I like freevar.  I'm still pondering nexttime versus future.  I need to
re-read the proposal to better understand what "next" is referring to so
that I can determine which of these new keywords is the more intuitive (at
least to me).

Regarding the comment that 1800-2005 also added new keywords that were
common English terms, there was a difference.  There was no expectation that
those new keywords in 1800-2005, with the exception of assertions and
coverage, would need to be used in legacy models and testbenches.  Most of
the new keywords in 1800-2005 were for entirely new models and testbenches,
where `begin_keywords or other methods (e.g. file name extensions) could be
used to mark the boundaries of new code versus legacy code.  Assertions and
coverage are the exception.  Verification engineers do need to insert
assertions into legacy models, or bind them in, with the binding being able
to touch internal signals within the legacy code.  This is why I have
reservations about using common English names for keywords that involve
assertions.  And has been noted, 1800-2005's use of common English names did
cause headaches for users.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:26 PM
> To: Brad Pierce
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: 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.
> 



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