Re: [sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable restriction

Hi Manisha,
Yes, now I have understood. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards
Surya



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:[sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable 
restriction
From: Kulshrestha, Manisha <Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com>
To: Surya Pratik Saha <spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com>
Cc: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>, sv-ac@eda.org
Date: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:51:29 AM
>
> Hi Surya,
>
> I was talking about this type of case (where local and direction is 
> not there but type is there):
>
> sequence sub_seq2(int lv);
> (a ##1 !a, lv += data_in)
> ##1 !b[*0:$] ##1 b && (data_out == lv);
> endsequence
>
>
> sequence seq2;
> int v1;
> (c, v1 = data)
> ##1 sub_seq2(v1) // lv is initialized by assigning it the value of v1;
> // when the instance sub_seq2(v1) matches, v1 is
> // assigned the value of lv
> ##1 (do1 == v1);
> endsequence
>
> Thanks.
>
> Manisha
>
> *From:* Surya Pratik Saha [mailto:spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:25 AM
> *To:* Kulshrestha, Manisha
> *Cc:* Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ac@eda.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable 
> restriction
>
> Hi Manisha,
> I have a confusion on your last statement. A formal argument either 
> can be declared as typed 'local' with direction or 'untyped'. There 
> are no other alternatives. So I am not sure what do you want to mean 
> there, and what will be the restriction if any.
>
>
> Regards
> Surya
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re:[sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable 
> restriction
> From: Kulshrestha, Manisha <Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com> 
> <mailto:Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com>
> To: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> 
> <mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com>, Surya Pratik Saha 
> <spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com> 
> <mailto:spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com>, sv-ac@eda.org 
> <mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:30:57 PM
>
> Well, I got confused by example illegal_loc_var_formal. Now, I also 
> think the text is incorrect. But I think this text has some meaning 
> when users do not specify ‘local’ in the formal’s type. In the last 
> paragraph of 16.8.2, it says “Untyped arguments provide an alternative 
> mechanism for passing local variables to an instance of a subsequence, 
> including the capability to assign to the local variable in the 
> subsequence and later reference the value assigned in the 
> instantiation context”.
>
> So, from this it looks like, either users have to specify type along 
> with ‘local’ in the formal or it has to be untyped if it is used as 
> local variable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Manisha
>
> *From:* Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:36 PM
> *To:* Kulshrestha, Manisha; Surya Pratik Saha; sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> <mailto:sv-ac@server.eda.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable 
> restriction
>
> Hi, Manisha.
>
> Where does the text in 16.8.2 say, or even imply, that this rule 
> applies only if the argument is used as an output, but not as inout?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shalom
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org
>     <mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org>
>     [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Kulshrestha,
>     Manisha
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:51 PM
>     *To:* Surya Pratik Saha; sv-ac@server.eda.org
>     <mailto:sv-ac@server.eda.org>
>     *Subject:* RE: [sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local
>     variable restriction
>
>     Hello Surya,
>
>     Please check clause 16.8.2 for more details. The example below is
>     correct and also the text. The rule that the ‘corresponding formal
>     argument shall be untyped’ only applies if the argument is used as
>     output (i.e. it is only assigned but not read). There are few
>     examples in 16.8.2 which make it more clear. Since this example
>     and the text are from different sections and from different mantis
>     items, it is confusing.
>
>     Manisha
>
>     *From:* owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org
>     <mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org>
>     [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Surya Pratik Saha
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2008 12:41 PM
>     *To:* sv-ac@server.eda.org <mailto:sv-ac@server.eda.org>
>     *Subject:* [sv-ac] Example shown in LRM contradicts local variable
>     restriction
>
>     Hi,
>     In SV 2009 draft LRM, there is an example:
>     sequence sub_seq2(local inout int lv);
>     (a ##1 !a, lv += data_in)
>     ##1 !b[*0:$] ##1 b && (data_out == lv);
>     endsequence
>     sequence seq2;
>     int v1;
>     (c, v1 = data)
>     ##1 sub_seq2(v1) // lv is initialized by assigning it the value of v1;
>     // when the instance sub_seq2(v1) matches, v1 is
>     // assigned the value of lv
>     ##1 (do1 == v1);
>     endsequence
>
>     And later it is mentioned:
>     It can be useful to assign a value to a local variable within an
>     instance of a named sequence and reference the
>     local variable in the instantiating context at or after the
>     completion of a match of the instance. This capability
>     is supported under the following conditions:
>     — The local variable shall be declared outside the named sequence,
>     and its scope shall include both the
>     instance of the named sequence and the desired reference in the
>     instantiating context.
>     — The local variable shall be passed as an entire actual argument
>     in the list of arguments of the
>     instance of the named sequence.
>     — *The corresponding formal argument shall be untyped.*
>
>     Whereas, in the example corresponding formal argument 'lv' is not
>     untyped for local variable 'v1'. Am I missing anything?
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards
>
>     Surya
>
>
>     -- 
>     This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
>     and is
>     believed to be clean.
>
>     -- 
>
>     This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com
>
>
>     -- 
>     This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
>     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.