Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
From: Jay Lawrence (lawrence@cadence.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 04:21:08 PDT
Because of the fact that the object can't be used prior to being
declared in the example you give below, this change is just not needed.
You also need to consider scopes that are not sequential like modules.
Are we now required to initialize objects in them in the order of
declaration as well?
This revision is for obvious things like typos, BNF mismatches etc. I
believe this change adds a new semantic requirement.
Jay
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 9:16 PM
To: Jay Lawrence; David W. Smith; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-cc;
sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Jay,
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 <mailto:lawrence@cadence.com> Lawrence
To: David W. Smith <mailto:david.smith@synopsys.COM> ; sv-ac@eda.org ;
sv-bc@eda.org ; sv-cc <mailto:sv-cc@eda.org> ; 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/> http://www.synopsys.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed May 14 2003 - 04:27:25 PDT