In the sections that describe the sampled value functions, we specify whether they can be used outside assertions-see the other sections modified in the proposal.
From: ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Seligman, Erik
Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; Dana Fisman; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted
See below:
TO
A bit with value X or Z is not counted towards the number of ones.
The above functions are not restricted to be used only in assertions. The functions $onehot, $onehot0, and $isunknown may be used in any context where an expression of type bit is permitted. The function $countones may be used in any context where an integer_type is permitted.
<In addition, several other categories of system functions are provided to deal with value changes over time:
--- Sampled value functions: $sampled, $rose, $fell, $stable, $changed, $past
--- Global clocking past value functions: $past_gclk, $rose_gclk, $fell_gclk, $stable_gclk, $changed_gclk
--- Global clocking future value functions: $future_gclk, $rising_gclk, $falling_gclk, $steady_gclk, $changing_gclk>
[Ben] It is not clear if those are not restricted to be used only in assertions Should that be more explicit? I don't believe that the futre functions make sense though... ??
The sampled value functions are described in 16.9.3. The global clocking functions are described in 16.9.4.
In 20.13 (Assertion system functions) CHANGE
assert_boolean_
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Seligman, Erik <erik.seligman@intel.com<mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com>> wrote:
Yes, I didn't want to tackle that can of worms within this proposal...
As for your original question: since this is a "less rigorous" part of the BNF, I was trying to create the simplest possible proposal that makes the syntax clear. I didn't think introducing a complex hierarchy of function types was needed here.
Do others on this list agree/disagree? It will be pretty easy to change if needed.
From: Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 2:29 AM
To: Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: 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<mailto:Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com>]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:18 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org<mailto: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<mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com>]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org<mailto: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<mailto:Dana.Fisman@synopsys.com>]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:50 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: RE: Draft proposal for 2476 (clarifications on system functions) posted
Why?
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com<mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com>]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Dana Fisman; Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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. -- 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.Received on Mon Sep 13 09:20:48 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 13 2010 - 09:20:59 PDT