Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Conflicting rules in A.2.10 and A.6.5
From: Surrendra Dudani (Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 18:37:32 PDT
Hi Adam,
We can file this as an errata to reflect this explicitly in the BNF. I'm
not sure how complicated the BNF will become, as clocking event is used in
several places. Other alternative is to simply state the proper usage in
the LRM, when an event expression is used as a formal or actual argument.
We can discuss this in the sv-ac meeting tomorrow.
Surrendra
At 03:10 PM 9/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Surrendra;
>
>I think we should use a different production rather than event expression.
>
>If we want to support as the value of an actual_arg_expr
> a = posedge clk (1)
> a = b or c or d (2)
> a = b, c, d (3)
>
>Then we should require parenthesis around #2 and #3. One could ask to support
>parenthesis around #1 as well to be consistent.
>
>Thus, if one wants a parameter with a default value of changes of signals,
>they
>would write:
>
>sequence tryit (
> a = posedge clk,
> b = (f or g or h)
> );
>...
>
>BTW, is it interesting to make a parameter be the change of a set of signals?
>Will this sync to the clock controlling the sequence/property/assertion?
>
>
> Adam Krolnik
> Verification Mgr.
> LSI Logic Corp.
> Plano TX. 75074
> Co-author "Assertion Based Design"
**********************************************
Surrendra A. Dudani
Synopsys, Inc.
377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel: 508-263-8072
Fax: 508-263-8123
email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com
**********************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 18:39:57 PDT