Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] Checkers & Formal

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv_at_.....>
Date: Thu Mar 06 2008 - 02:40:39 PST
Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Gord,
[...]
> Could you clarify the following sentence: "Some of the special routines
> (for example those related to enables) for checkers really need to be
> explained in terms of how they relate to the outer language
> constructs."?


Consider the use of $inferred_enable.  What does it produce in a
type sense?  Can I use it with an untyped formal?  With such a
formal, can I do coverage on it?  What if the inferred enable is
a condition that relates to a loop variable?  Are all combinations
checked in that context as well?  What if the enable is automatic?
Is that legal?  Clearly (from 16.18.4) you expect $inferred_enable
to be able to produce a sequence and be able to use a non-sequence
expression in that inferred role.  Is there anything else that
the $inferred_enable can produce?  After looking at LRM 16.14.5,
Mantis 1674 and 1648, it still isn't clear to me what the
combination of rules implies.  16.14.5 says that for a concurrent
assertion, an inferred enable can't occur in a loop.  Does
that apply to a checker as well?  What if the inferred_enable
isn't actually used in an assertion in the checker?  Would that
be legal?


I would like to move beyond a narrow discussion of specific rules
at some point -- no one has addressed my larger concerns about
consistency and regularity of the various constructs.  One
can make the overall LRM as convoluted as necessary to deal
with all the cases that one can imagine, but then one has to
re-examine all of those special cases and rules with any future
change.  I don't think that is a good direction and have said
as much for quite a while now with no response from anyone in
AC -- the only focus has been on adding new rules and covering
specific cases that I am raising.  My basic concern is that
it just shouldn't be this much work -- is it not possible to
devise a simpler set of more consistent abstractions for interaction
between the assertions constructs and the rest of the language?

Gord.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Mar 6 02:42:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 02:44:55 PST