RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-bc] Need your review of Mantis item 1741

Steven's point is that it works today in old Verilog code.
And therefore the back-compatibility consideration means it needs to be
legal. 

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Jim Vellenga
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:59 PM
> To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc
> Cc: sv-cc@server.eda-stds.org; Steven Sharp
> Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-bc] Need your review of Mantis item 1741
> 
> Yes, I believe that to be the case.  Steve Sharp's comment is 
> perhaps a little confusing:
> 
> "If the unnamed block is not a scope (because it doesn't 
> contain any local variable declarations) then the named block 
> name would be in the next scope out."
> 
> Perhaps it would be clearer to say that "then the named block 
> _scope_ would be the next scope out."
> 
> For a fuller test case at the language level (as opposed to 
> VPI), one could write
> 
> module top;
>   logic x;
> 
>   initial
>     begin
>       begin : BLK
>         var v = 1'b1;  // Is this decl contained in the unnamed begin?
>       end
>     end
> 
>   initial
>     #(1) x = top.BLK.v;
> endmodule
> 
> The SV-BC must decide, of course, whether or not this is legal.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim Vellenga
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------- 
> James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
> Software Architect                              (FAX) 978-262-6636 
> Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
> 270 Billerica Rd
> Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
> "We all work with partial information." 
> ----------------------------------------------------------  
> 
> ]-----Original Message-----
> ]From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On 
> ]Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> ]Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:34 PM
> ]To: sv-bc
> ]Cc: sv-cc@eda-stds.org
> ]Subject: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-bc] Need your review of Mantis item 
> 1741 ] ]Would a hierarchical reference to BLK.v from outside 
> the unnamed ]begin-end be legal in the following example?
> ]
> ]    begin
> ]      begin : BLK
> ]        var v = 1'b1;  // Is this decl contained in the 
> unnamed begin?
> ]      end
> ]    end
> ]
> ]-- Brad
> ]
> ]-----Original Message-----
> ]From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jim ]Vellenga
> ]Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:25 PM
> ]To: sv-bc
> ]Cc: sv-cc@eda-stds.org
> ]Subject: [sv-bc] Need your review of Mantis item 1741 ] 
> ]SV-BC, ] ]As directed by the Champions, I am requesting your 
> review of ]Mantis item
> ]1741 with respect to the question of when an unnamed block 
> does or does ]not constitute a scope.
> ]
> ]In my append to 1741 of August 13, I have included a 
> statement from ]Steve Sharp as to the reasons why we should 
> consider an ]unnamed begin or ]unnamed fork to be a scope if 
> and only if it contains a block item ]declaration.
> ]
> ]Please review this soon so that we can include the revised 
> proposal in ]the upcoming version of the standard.
> ]
> ]Regards,
> ]Jim Vellenga
> ]
> ]--------------------------------------------------------- 
> ]James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
> ]Software Architect                              (FAX) 978-262-6636 
> ]Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
> ]270 Billerica Rd
> ]Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
> ]"We all work with partial information." 
> ]----------------------------------------------------------
> ]
> ]--
> ]This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
> content by ]MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]--
> ]This message has been scanned for viruses and ]dangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and is ]believed to be clean.
> ]
> ]
> ]
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.