[sv-champions] Fwd: RE: Issue 609

Hi, Champions, Stu has had his objection to V-609 resolved. Can each of you send me a note indicating if we can indicate to the P1800 meeting that we approve of this change? If so, I can comment that we recommend approval next week.

Thanks,

K

>Reply-To: <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
>From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
>To: "'Steven Sharp'" <sharp@cadence.com>, <etf@boyd.com>,
> <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.COM>
>Subject: RE: Issue 609
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:22:58 -0800
>Organization: Sutherland HDL, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
>Thread-Index: AcTde2lEWFU4WYZXTQ2odG2BDP4GsAAANMDA
>X-pstn-levels: (S:80.92488/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:94.8624 C:98.9754 )
>X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
>X-pstn-addresses: from <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> [582/17]
>
>
>That satisfies my concerns. It was pointed out in another e-mail that the
>P1800 already has this change to the BNF, and 609 makes the 1364 BNF
>consistent. (I suspect there are other areas where the two BNFs have
>drifted apart, but that's another story for some other day...)
>
>Stu
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Stuart Sutherland
>stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
>+1-503-692-0898
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com] On
>> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 3:09 PM
>> To: etf@boyd.com; Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com
>> Subject: Issue 609
>>
>> The nonterminals primary and constant_primary are each
>> referenced in only two places in the BNF. The relevant
>> productions (listed only for primary, since the ones for
>> constant_primary follow the same pattern) are
>>
>> expression ::=
>> primary
>> | unary_operator { attribute_instance} primary
>> ...
>> | string
>>
>> For the first reference to primary, string is allowed as an
>> alternative, so making primary produce string causes no
>> change. For the second reference to primary, allowing
>> primary to produce string will mean that a unary operator can
>> be used on a string. It seems clear that this should be
>> legal, and this is supported by testing in Verilog-XL and NC-Verilog.
>>
>> Since there are no other references to these nonterminals,
>> this change can have no other effect.
>>
>> Steven Sharp
>> sharp@cadence.com
>>
>>
>>
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:22:32 2004