RE: [sv-ec] Comments on 890-5.pdf

Jonathan,

A couple responses below.  Thanks again for the detailed comments.

All,

Should I incorporate Jonathan's comments that I marked "OK"
into a draft 6 before we do a group review of the proposal?
Or would you prefer to review Jonathan's comments one-by-one
in the next meeting before I incorporate them?  We might save
time by having me directly handle the straightforward ones.

Thanks,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Bromley [mailto:jonathan.bromley@doulos.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:34 AM
> To: Warmke, Doug; sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Comments on 890-5.pdf
> 
> A few comments on the 890-5 proposals relating to
> program blocks (clause 16):
> 
> 
> General comments
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> (1) Design variables
> It seems to me that there's some verbal struggling with
> the notion of "design variables" or "design signals", with 
> the phrase requiring glossing each time it's used.  Then,
> for brevity, we have "design signals in a module" when 
> strictly we should speak of a module or interface.
> Would it be sensible to define the phrase "design signal"
> or "design object" at the outset to be a net or variable
> declared in a module or interface?

DOUG: OK - good idea

> 
> (2) Spelling of "Observed" region name throughout.

DOUG: OK

> 
> 
> 16.3 Eliminating testbench races
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> (1) Wrong font in the paragraph heading.

DOUG: OK

> 
> (2) First complete paragraph at the top of page 8 of 
> 890-5.pdf, third line, just after the new insertion:  
> it's not clear to me why the use of input #0 is 
> necessary or relevant here.  It might, however,
> be useful to observe (in a Note) that a program reading 
> design signals without using a clocking block will see 
> the same values as it would if the signals were clocking
> inputs with a skew of #0, unless the program then
> modifies those signals itself in the same timeslot.

DOUG: Good question about the #0.

Arturo - care to elaborate on that?
Or should we remove the #0?

I don't really understand the suggestion for a note.
A program without a clocking block will behave completely
differently than one with a clocking block, due to the
edge-based sampling.   I tend to think we could forego
the Note suggested here - to be clear, it might get
pretty wordy.

Thanks again,
Doug

> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Bromley, Consultant
> 
> DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
> VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services
> 
> Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, 
> Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                   Email: 
> jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
> Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web: 
> http://www.doulos.com
> 
> The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
> are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.
> 

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