[sv-bc] RE: Issue #315

Mark,

Thanks for the 2nd set of eyes.
The results are already worth the double check effort!

My comments on these findings:

1. It looks like the bind syntax box was made too small,
   and cut out the bottom part of the text. This needs
   to be fixed, whatever the cause.

2. Regarding your items 1), 2), and 3), this was my editing
   oversight when putting together the proposal. I want to
   have those items deleted from the SV3.1a LRM, since some
   of them are incorrect (like the signals (a,b,c) one) and
   the others are unnecessary redundancy (defining what a program
   block is, explaining that every instance of cpu gets properties
   (it's not even clear properties are being bound here!), and the
   example has been replaced by a more comprehensive example).
   I should have red-penned those sections but somehow overlooked
   that when writing the proposal.

   In my opinion the P1800 LRM is good on this front and no
   changes should be made.

3. I just found that there is a misspelling in the example
   binding an interface instance at the top of page 291
   in draft3. "endinterface" is misspelled as "endinteface".
   This was in the original 17.15, but should be fixed now.

I'll enter my items 1. and 3. as a Bugnote in SV #315.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hartoog [mailto:Mark.Hartoog@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:24 AM
> To: Sv-Bc; Warmke, Doug
> Subject: Issue #315
>
> I was suppose to review issue 315 changes as well.
>
> I notice that in the bind syntax box in section 17.15 the
> bind_instantiation rule is missing the interface_instantiation.
> The interface_instantiation is part of the bind_instantiation
> rule in Appendix A and it was in the syntax box in 3.1a too.
> The #315 erratum did not call for this to be deleted.
>
> There is some other text that has been deleted and is marked in
> red, but was not part of issue #315. From the draft 3 LRM I can
> not see what other item caused this text to be deleted. The
> LRM makes it look like it was #315. Examples of this are:
>
> 1) The sentence:
> "A program block contains non-design code (either
> testbench or properties) and executes in the Reactive region,
> as explained in Section 16.",
>
> 2) The two items in the list after the example:
> -- Ports (a, b,c) get bound to signals (a,b,c) of module cpu.
> -- Every instance of cpu gets the properties
>
> 3) The second example:
> Example of binding a program instance to a specific instance
> of a module:
>
> bind cpu1 fpu_props fpu_rules_1(a,b,c);
>
>
>
>
> Mark Hartoog
> 700 E. Middlefield Road
> Mountain View, CA 94043
> 650 584-5404
> markh@synopsys.com
>
Received on Tue Jan 25 12:22:39 2005