[sv-ac] RE: [sv-sc] ended vs. triggered

Hi Tom,

But you may not know where they come from:

checker c1(...);

	c2 c2_inst(seq.triggered, ...);

endchecker

Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM [mailto:Thomas.Thatcher@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:56 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-sc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-sc] ended vs. triggered


Hi Dmitry,

> 
> What do others think?
> 
> [Korchemny, Dmitry] Calling $sampled method explicitly is problematic
> since in case of a checker input argument you don't know from where it
> came: from design or from another checker. This should be done
> implicitly. Since the checker variables in the blocking assignments
are
> non-sampled, the argument passing from one checker to another one
needs
> to be clarified, it cannot be a substitution anymore. I suggest
> postponing this discussion until the next PAR.
> 

Yes, but if you have consistent assignment rules:  i.e.  variables are 
assigned at the same time, whether or not they originate inside the 
checker; then it doesn't matter.  All variables are handled in the same 
way.  In most cases, everything works exactly the way things work in a 
module.  The only exception case is where you are trying to combine 
variable values with the output of a sequence method.  In that case, you

need to use $sampled() if you want the old value of the variable.  I 
feel it is much easier to have one set of rules, than to create a bunch 
of exceptions.

Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.