RE: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] 2005: Deferred assertions (new proposal at http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2005)

But you have different keywords:  "assert" and "assert property".

 

Regards,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Adam Krolnik
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:56 PM
To: Seligman, Erik
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] 2005: Deferred assertions (new proposal at
http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2005)

 


Hello all;

My concern with this new syntax is that you are now very close to
concurrent assertions.

Deferred:
assert  (#0 | event_expr) ...

Concurrent
assert property ...

If you keep the ability for an event expression, then you have two
seemingly same syntax constructions.
This may cause confusion to users. 

SV-AC what do you think about this confusion between deferred and
concurrent forms ? 




-- 
    Soli Deo Gloria
    Adam Krolnik
    Director of Design Verification
    VeriSilicon Inc.
    Plano TX. 75074
    Co-author "Assertion-Based Design", "Creating Assertion-Based IP"
 
 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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