>From: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com> >In general, checkers seems strange. They are structural constructs that >may be instantiated inside procedural code where no other structural >component may be instantiated, but they are also considerable limiting >since they may contain only a few constructs. > > > >[Korchemny, Dmitry] The checkers are similar to concurrent assertions: >if a concurrent assertion is written inside procedural code, it does not >mean that it is executed together with the procedural code, and it has >(almost) the same effect as being written outside the procedural code. >Writing concurrent assertions and checkers inside procedural code is >sort of syntactic sugaring, and it is aimed to improve assertion >usability only. Unfortunately, this claim is violated by Mantis 1995 and 2110. Mantis 1995 proposes to allow concurrent assertions in procedural code to be affected by procedural loops in a bizarre way. It is similar to pretending that the procedural loop is a generate loop for instantiating the concurrent assertions. Since procedural loops are quite different from generate loops, there are problems with trying to pretend this. Mantis 1995 should have been submitted to SV-BC for review and approval before being sent to the Champions, as procedural code falls within the SV-BC scope. I would urge the Champions to withdraw their approval of it until such a review has been done and the problems have been fixed. Failing that, I would urge the WG to reject it and send it back. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Feb 21 15:04:54 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 21 2008 - 15:05:28 PST