[sv-ac] RE: Embedding concurrent assertions in procedural code

Hi Erik,

 

Are you sure this limitation has been lifted?

 

16.17 Clock resolution reads:

 

c) A contextually inferred clocking event from a procedural block
supersedes a default clocking event.

The contextually inferred clocking event is treated as though it had
been written as the leading

clocking event of any concurrent assertion statement to which the
inferred clock applies. The maximal

property of such a concurrent assertion statement shall be singly
clocked, and the clocking

event, if specified otherwise, shall be identical to the contextually
inferred clocking event.

 

Dmitry

 

From: Seligman, Erik 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Lisa Piper
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-sc@eda.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Subject: RE: Embedding concurrent assertions in procedural code

 

Actually, r2 is deleted explicitly in 2398 -- see the 8/13 proposal
draft, p.5, near the top
(http://www.verilog.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=3886&type=bug).
I think this was because it mentioned a restriction (If the clock is
explicitly specified with a property, then it shall be identical to the
inferred clock) which is no longer true.

 

Stu, can we treat the re-numeration and variable renaming as editorial
issues?  Would you like me to add a bugnote?

________________________________

From: Korchemny, Dmitry 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:54 AM
To: Lisa Piper; Seligman, Erik
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-sc@eda.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Subject: Embedding concurrent assertions in procedural code

Hi Lisa, Erik,

 

It looks to me that the subclause 16.15.6 Embedding concurrent
assertions in procedural code is broken. Here are the issues I found:

*         Example with property r2 has been deleted. I could not find
the reason either in 1698 or in 2398

*         If r2 does need to be deleted (though I am not sure it does),
the numeration of all other properties should be shifted: r3 should
become r2, etc

*         Examples with r3 and r4 have assignments r1 <= reset ? 0 : r1
+ 1; and r1 <= reset ? 0 : r2 + 1; which is confusing since r1 and r2
are property names in the previous examples. I think they should read:
d1 <= reset ? 0 : d1 + 1; and d1 <= reset ? 0 : d2 + 1;

 

Could you, please, check?

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

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