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

I have an issue with the inconsistency in assuming in some instances that
the BNF is not the real bible, except in some case; et also assuming that in
other cases the LRM text, instead of the BNF is the real bible. For example:

Lisa Piper: On the issue of default disable iff declaration:
"I agree that the text could be more clear.  The BNF is clear that disable
iff is allowed in a checker."
In this case, the BNF is the bible!
--
Brad Pierc: On the issue of checker body ; $display/$monitor commands
Yes, the BNF syntax description should not try to express every semantic
restriction imposed by the text.
n this case, the BNF is NOT the bible!

For this case on checker, I recommend that we modify the definition of the
checker_always_construct
From:
checker_always_construct ::= always statement  // <----
To:
Something more exact that reflects the limitations, such as the use of
 subroutine_call_statement


Before writing a Mantis (which I am still not allowed yet), I want to hear
your comments.
Is this worthwhile?
Ben Cohen

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_$ ] }  <---



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.