[sv-ac] RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

It's also much bigger than SV-AC.

Shalom

From: Dana Fisman [mailto:Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:18 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

Thanks Shalom.

I don't think these are good enough reasons, but I understand this is a separate issue...

Regards,
Dana

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

There were several reasons, I think:

1. There were very many, and they would have made Annex A much bigger.

2. These BNFs were less rigorous.

3. These parts of the language had much more parts whose implementation by vendors was not mandatory, and there were much more vendor-specific extensions.

Regards,
Shalom

From: Dana Fisman [mailto:Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:50 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

Why?

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

Regarding why the assertion system functions are not in Annex A, this is deliberate, not an oversight.

All the syntax excerpts from Clauses 20-22 (system functions and tasks, compiler directives) are not in Annex A.

Regards,
Shalom

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Dana Fisman
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:53 AM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

Hi Erik,

Just one comment -

Why not separate the BNF for assert_boolean_functions to several categories, each capturing a syntactic entity all of whose system functions can be used interchangeably from syntax perspective (i.e. all return the same type of expression and are allowed in same places). Isn't that the purpose of the BNF (to give quick answer on what can be used where)? Also, why isn't this in Annex A (originally and in the proposal)

Thanks,
Dana

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 12:25 AM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted

Hi guys-
I just posted a first draft of the proposal for Mantis http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2476, at http://www.verilog.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4536&type=bug . Please take a look & send comments.

Thanks!

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