RE: [sv-ac] Call to vote. Due August 30

Hi John,

Please, see my comments below.

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: Havlicek John-R8AAAU [mailto:r8aaau@freescale.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:14 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Call to vote. Due August 30

I think that rule proposed for sampling the RHS of checker NBAs needs to be scrutinized for interaction with enveloping procedural constructs that the writers of checker modeling code are going to need.
[Korchemny, Dmitry] I agree with this statement. At our last meeting we agreed to start working on Mantis "3033: Allow procedural control statements in checkers", and Ben took an action item to study it. You are, of course, welcome to join. As far as I can see, the conditions in the conditional statements to be introduced should have the same sampling rules as the RHS of the checker variable assignment. E.g., in

if (checker_arg) ...

checker_arg should be sampled. Therefore this does not seem to contradict the current proposal.

I am worried that this is a step down a complicated path and that we should look for a simpler overall solution to the problem.
[Korchemny, Dmitry] Any alternative proposal is welcome. If we have several proposals, we will choose the best one (or their combination). Our goal is not to stick to a specific solution, but to resolve the problems we have.

Some motivating examples that show the interaction between checker modeling code and non-checker modeling code will be useful.
[Korchemny, Dmitry] I am not sure I understand this statement. It is (and likely will remain) problematic to procedurally instantiate a checker having checker procedures. I don't know how to remedy this, and I am not sure that this feature would be very useful. Again, I may misunderstand your statement.

Also, I am not convinced by the motivation for the mantis. I think that a const cast could be added to $inferred_disable, either as a default actual argument or as an explicit actual argument to avoid sampling of the inferred rst signal.
[Korchemny, Dmitry] Could you elaborate? Are you talking about something like:

checker check(a, rst = $nonsampled_inferred_disable); // ...

If you add an explicit actual argument then you lose the inferred disable:

check my_check(const'( x), const'(rst));

Let alone that this is ugly.

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