Subject: updated BNF issues for the next SV-BC tele-call
From: Jacobi, Dan (dan.jacobi@intel.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 05:56:19 PST
Hello All,
Attached is an update to the document documenting the BNF changes.
I also added the new items that were sent during the last month and cross
references to the ETF issue list.
The Document is attached in both Microsoft Word format and in HTML format
The following items are new items and are not listed under the SV-BC issue
list :
1. do-while statements
Location : under A.6.8 (looping statements) the rules that parse the
loop_statement and function_loop_statement syntactic categories.
Suggested Change : adding a semi colon ';' after the do ... while statement
.
This issue was reported by Brad Pierce.
2. the edge key word and syntactic category
2.a Location : Annex B
Suggested change : add the "edge" keyword to the keywords list.
The keyword is used under A.7.5.3 in the rule that parses the
“edge_control_specifier” syntactic category.
2.b Location : A.7.5.3
drop issue SV-BC-19-40
It is wrong
2.c Location : under A.6.5 in the rules that parse the "event_expression"
and "edge" syntactic categories.
Suggested change : change the syntactic category named "edge" from "edge" to
"event_edge_identifier"
due to the that the word edge is already used as a keyword. ( In case the
keyword “changed” will be dropped then the syntactic category
“edge_identifier” will be able to be used)
See more info under the previous E-mail :
http://www.eda.org/vlog-pp/sv-bc/hm/0287.html
3. SV-BC-19-35
Location : Under A.6.8 in the rule that parses the looping_statement
syntactic category
Suggested change : change the SV-BC-19-35 proposal to the ETF proposal ETF #
85.
see more information in Shalom's E-mail :
http://www.eda.org/vlog-pp/sv-bc/hm/0276.html
This issue is not part of the attached document
The ETF suggested change
In A.6.5, after event_expression add the following
new nonterminal and definition --
procedural_timing_control ::=
delay_control
| event_control
and change the definition of
procedural_timing_control_statement from
procedural_timing_control_statement ::=
delay_or_event_control statement_or_null
to
procedural_timing_control_statement ::=
procedural_timing_control statement_or_null
(the deleay_or_event_control syntactic category can't be removed due to
the fact that it
is used in other places such as blocking and non-blocking assignments and
in the
assertions)
4. Signed function declarations
Location : under A.2.6
The Problem : according to the BNF the following function declarations are
legal
function signed void foo1(...);
can all function types be signed - non integer type signals
(real , time ...)
can not be signed however non integer type functions can ?
function signed bit unsigned foo2(...);
Is this function signed or not ?
More Details can be found in my previous E-mail :
http://www.eda.org/vlog-pp/sv-bc/hm/0290.html
Dan Jacobi
Office Tel : (972) - 4 - 8655855
Intel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 05:57:41 PST