RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 1330/1742: semantics unclear?

I would still like to see a mantis item entered and put into the
"Editor" status. That way it doesn't get lost. The editor (Stu) can move
it back to a new issue if he thinks it's beyond his authority. 

I have submitted 2234.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 1330/1742: semantics unclear?
> 
> Stu has more than enough authority as the editor to make corrections
> like this on his own, without Mantis and formal votes.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Rich, Dave
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:45 AM
> To: Jonathan Bromley; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 1330/1742: semantics unclear?
> 
> Probably the correct IEEE-ese grammar should be
> 
> "An interface instance or virtual interface with no modport selected
may
> be assigned to a virtual interface with a modport selected"
> 
> 
> The example should be
> 
> v32_phy = p32; // legal assignment from no selected modport to
>                // selected modport
> 
> 
> I think we should just create a mantis issue as an editorial change.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Bromley
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:26 AM
> > To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> > Subject: [sv-ec] Mantis 1330/1742: semantics unclear?
> >
> > hi EC,
> >
> > I have a problem with the meaning of some of the rules about virtual
> > interfaces as modified by Mantis 1330.
> >
> > The following sentence is somewhat opaque:
> >
> >   It shall be legal to assign to a virtual interface with
> >   a modport selected from an interface instance or virtual
> >   interface with no modport selected.
> >
> > The examples towards the end of 24.9 help a little:
> >
> >   v16_phy = v16; // legal assignment from no selected
> >                  // modport to selected modport
> >   v16 = v16_phy; // illegal assignment from selected modport to
> >                  // no selected modport
> >
> > but the semantics of "v16_phy = v16;" are poorly specified - having
> > made the assignment, is access to "v16_phy.something"
> > restricted by the modport (as per v16_phy's declaration) or is it
just
> 
> > an access through the interface (as per the actual contents of
> > v16_phy, a reference to the whole interface)?
> > I'm guessing it's the former, by analogy with the semantics of
> > connecting an interface port and to facilitate compile-time checking
> > of the legality of accesses.
> >
> > Finally, the comment seems wrong on this part of the examples:
> >
> >   v32_phy = p32.phy; // legal assignment from no selected modport to
> >                  // selected modport
> >
> > Surely "p32.phy" indeed *has* a selected modport?
> > --
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


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