RE: [sv-ac] RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi,
 
I have uploaded updated version of the proposal named
Proposal_0002804_1.docx.
 
Manisha

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 5:55 PM
To: Eduard Cerny; Seligman, Erik
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi Ed, Erik,

Yes, you are right about clocking blocks and checkers. One more
question: should we disallow iff clause for (clocking block) events?
Also, are formal arguments of type event are considered event variables?
If yes, there is an ambiguity in checkers: on one hand the formal event
should always be inferred, on the other hand, it should only be inferred
upon argument substitution. I am talking about the following case:

checker check (x, event clk);

always @clk

                a1: assert property(x): // Should @clk be inferred here?

endchecker

module m(logic a, clock,...);

...

check c(a, clock)

endmodule

Thanks,

Dmitry

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Eduard Cerny
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Seligman, Erik; Eduard Cerny
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi Dmitry,

I think that the other issues are covered by the other conditions in
Erik's proposal, no?

ed

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:50 AM
To: Seligman, Erik; Eduard Cerny
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi

I agree with this statement. I would add a clarification that the tool
is required to detect dependency only in the scope to which the always
procedure belongs. Also, addressing clock inference of the form @clk in
checkers or when clk is a clocking block event is not covered by this
statement.

Thanks,

Dmitry

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Seligman, Erik
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:11 PM
To: Eduard Cerny
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi guys-Ed has a suggestion that rather than the ugly list of categories
for exempting a signal appearance for clock inference, we do something
like this:

No term in expression1 appears anywhere else in the body of the
procedure in such a way as to affect the state of the variables assigned
in the procedure, other than as an event control.

What do you think? Would this work?

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:07 AM
To: Seligman, Erik
Subject: RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi Erik,

the first part is just the tail of your sentence starting from task
instance. But If we use the 2nd form that part would not be needed.
Perhaps the 2nd point could be modified to say "not affect other than by
the even control"?

best...

ed

From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:36 AM
To: Eduard Cerny; Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

I'm not sure I understand your first point-can you re-specify the full
sentence as you would change it?

For the second point, I don't think your rephrasing would work...
wouldn't the use as a clock within the procedure potentially affect the
state of variables?

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:24 AM
To: Seligman, Erik; Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: Eduard Cerny
Subject: RE: 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi Erik

regarding

task instantiation, or system function or task.

should it be the actual arguments to a task, system function or system
task call?

Still, what about:

No term in expression1 appears anywhere else in the body of the
procedure in such a way as to affect the state of the variables assigned
in the procedure.

best regards,

ed

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Seligman, Erik
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:03 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] 2804 proposal uploaded

Hi guys-I have uploaded a new proposal at
http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2804, which I think captures
the results of this morning's discussion. Please take a look & comment
if further changes are needed.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean. 
-- 
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 <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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.