Subject: Re: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
From: Arturo Salz (Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 18:16:04 PDT
MessageJay,
That sentence only applies to initial values within a scope, and it simply extends to static initialization the same semantics as automatic variables. What you say is true: initial values are allowed to contain hierarchical names, so a complete ordering of elaboration and assignments of initial values across scopes is needed, but that process is not necessary for local variables.
Furthermore, That sentence allows code like the following:
task x;
int a = b + 1; // b = ?
int b = 5;
...
endtask
to be treated as an error, since b is used before being defined. The only exception are hierarchical expressions.
However, the declaration:
task x;
int b = 5;
int a = b + 1; // a = 6
...
endtask
will yield the expected results whether the task is static or automatic. The intent was not to add anything new but to clarify that static and automatic declarations have the same semantics.
Arturo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lawrence
To: David W. Smith ; sv-ac@eda.org ; sv-bc@eda.org ; sv-cc ; sv-ec@eda.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:00 PM
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
David,
I have reviewed the LRM changes here and have 1 question (which may become an objection) and 1 definite objection.
First the question, did the sv-ac review and approve the addition of this appendix G as part of change LRM-356?
I'm aware that they had been discussing John's definition here, but it is a major addition to the LRM that I saw no vote on it for inclusion, there has certainly been no debate on the reflector for the last 2 weeks (unless I've been removed from sv-ac). Erich Marschner is our usual sv-ac representative but he is traveling in Japan and somewhat out of reach. Unless there was a specific vote to include this major addition, I would ask that it be removed.
Secondly, I object to the change of functionality in LRM-359. The addition of the clause "Within a scope, initial values are applied in the order of declaration". Is not a clarification, it adds a new requirement on implementation and is not complete. Initial values are allowed to contain hierarchical names, therefore specifying the ordering within a scope is not sufficient. A complete ordering of elaboration and assignment of initial values across all scopes (including parameters, localparams and defparams) would need to be done to make this initialization deterministic. This addition is a hack that adds no determinism.
Jay
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Smith [mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:33 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org; 'sv-cc'; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Greetings,
I requested from the chairs and SV champions any changes they felt were required to the Draft 6 LRM before it is released. These changes are meant to be corrections to what was provided or correct missing items.
I have just posted to the SV-EC web site (http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Draft_6_Review/LRM_Issues.html) the current set of changes. These changes (and any others that are deemed by the Chairs to be appropriate) will be added to the final draft of the LRM.
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
http://www.synopsys.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 13 2003 - 19:37:48 PDT