Re: [sv-ac] P1800-2009: checker body ; $display/$monitor commands?

Per Abhishek conversations (see below), there is an error in the following
statement in LRM 17.5. Note that the syntax is OK. Dmitry could you write a
Mantis for Abhishek or I for the following:

P1800-2009 17.5 states:
"An always procedure in a checker body may contain deferred and concurrent
assertions, nonblocking variable assignments (see 17.7.1) and a procedural
timing control statement using an event control. All other statements shall
not appear inside an always procedure."

This seems to exclude the  subroutine_call_statement. Actually, the "all
other" is ambiguous to a reader. It needs to be clarified. Perhaps we should
explicitly specify what shall not appear inside and always procedure.
Ben Cohen
-----

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Abhishek Muchandikar <
Abhishek.Muchandikar@synopsys.com> wrote:

>  Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Yup, this part I missed.
>
>
>
> I was referring to the below LRM statement 17.5 :
>
>
>
> “An *always *procedure in a checker body may contain deferred and
> concurrent assertions, nonblocking variable
>
> assignments (see 17.7.1) and a procedural timing control statement using
> an event control. All other
>
> statements shall not appear inside an *always *procedure.”
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhishek
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:12 PM
>
> *To:* Abhishek Muchandikar
> *Cc:* Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] P1800-2009: checker body ; $display/$monitor
> commands?
>
>
>
> Abhishek,
>
> I fail to understand why you say that a $display is not allowed on a
> checker variable. Where do you see that in the LRM?
>
> I see the following though:
>
>
>
> checker_or_generate_item ::= checker_or_generate_item_declaration |
> initial_construct *| checker_always_construct // <----*
>
> *...*
>
> *checker_always_construct ::= always statement // <----*
>
>
>
> *statement ::= [ block_identifier : ] { attribute_instance }
> statement_item statement_item ::= ... | subroutine_call_statement <--- ....
> *
>
>
>
> *system_tf_call ::= system_tf_identifier [ ( list_of_arguments ) ] |
> system_tf_identifier ( data_type [ , expression ] ) subroutine_call ::=
> tf_call | system_tf_call <--*
>
> *... *
>
> *system_tf_identifier46 ::= $[ a-zA-Z0-9_$ ]{ [ a-zA-Z0-9_$ ] } <---*
>
>
>
> Thus, the following should be legal:
>
> checker X;
>
>    logic clk, a;
>
>  always @ (posedge clk) $display("a= %b", a);
>
> endchecker;
>
>
>
> Ben Cohen
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Abhishek Muchandikar <
> Abhishek.Muchandikar@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
>  As pointed out by you, we can always use action blocks  to make sue of
> $display but that would be sort of a WA.
>
> Would it not be a value add to have a $monitor on a checker var  as such.
> In this way we could actually track  checker data types.
>
> As of now there is no direct way to do this.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhishek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:25 PM
> *To:* Abhishek Muchandikar
> *Cc:* Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] P1800-2009: checker body ; $display/$monitor
> commands?
>
>
>
> Hi Abhishek,
>
> $display/$monitor are system functions, and are not disallowed.  In fact,
> on Page 428 *17.9 Complex checker example, *you can see the application of
> $display.
>
> generate if (coverage_level != cover_none) begin : cover_b
>
> cover_window_open: cover property (start_flag && !window)
>
> *$display("win_open_covered”);*
>
> cover_window: cover property (
>
> start_flag && !window
>
> ##1 (!end_flag && window) [*0:$]
>
> ##1 end_flag && window
>
> ) *$display("window covered");*
>
> end : cover_b
>
> endgenerat
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Abhishek Muchandikar <
> Abhishek.Muchandikar@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,Dmitry
>
>
>
> A generic question :
>
>
>
> In regards to checkers  , LRM 17.2 does not  mention use of display/monitor
>  statements in checker body.
>
> Do we plan to allow these commands in the checker body?
>
>
>
> Without the use of these command the debugging of checker variable would be
> tedious in my opinion.
>
> Add to the fact that use of checker vars  outside the checker body is
> illegal.
>
>
>
> Please comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhishek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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