Tom, thanks for taking great notes on the meeting. Thomas Thatcher wrote: > [...] > Dave: Would not be able to use automatic variable for part select. > e.g. for (int i=0; i<3; i++) assert property (@clk a[i:i+2]) > Mark: Many people against putting assertions into loops. Have to be > be careful of the hierarchical naming. > Dmitry: Current proposal was developed with a lot of help from Gord One quick note on this just to make sure that people understand where I am on this. I really do not like checkers in loops either. Originally when I raised substantive objections, no one else was speaking up so I assumed that everyone accepted the base semantics and worked with AC members on moving the description away from a "rewrite this into a generate" approach to the current from which at least has many fewer problems in terms of name conflicts, etc. No one should construe my work on this as support for the underlying approach of having checkers in loops. 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 Mon Mar 10 23:49:19 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 10 2008 - 23:49:41 PDT