Re: [sv-ec]e-mail ballot Closes Wednesday February 20 2008, 11:59pm PST

Are you saying that let can't be used *at all*?  What about
in bins declarations, etc?  I don't see that kind of restriction.

My concerns other than "let" are still open.

Gord.

Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Gord,
> 
> I don't think that let is an issue here since the let construct cannot
> be used to define covergroup elements even in checkers, so from this
> point of view the situation should not be different from covergroups in
> modules.
> 
> Regards,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:30 AM
> To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Cc: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec]e-mail ballot Closes Wednesday February 20 2008,
> 11:59pm PST
> 
> 
> 
> Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:
>>  We are conducting an email based on request from SV-AC on the
> following
>> mantis items:  2088 and 2089.
>>
>> the latest documents associated with the mantis items are:
>>  2088_covergroups_20080211.pdf
>>  2089_finalInChecker_20080129.pdf
> ...
>>  Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason. 
>>  Send it to the reflector.
>>
>>  2088  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2088    
> 
> 
> No for a couple of reasons.  First, I need more time to be
> able to adequately review this.  Second, the interactions
> between the type space (the covergroup type) and the checker
> "instantiations" are not obvious to me.  Is a checker
> now a sneaky way of introducing type declarations (covergroups)
> into a procedural (even conditional) block?   What
> assumptions are being made about whether new covergroup
> types are introduced with such checker "instantiations"?
> Remember -- covergroups have class-static properties so
> type uniqueness is important to have absolutely clear.
> Are unreachable (sequentially dead) covergroup types
> still alive?  When are they created (via the "new") in
> such scenarios?  Can a covergroup look at a free var from
> the checker?
> 
> I am also concerned that there might be lurking assumptions
> about essentially having "macro like" expansions involving
> "let" and other untyped aspects.  All of this is related
> to my early serious objections to "let" and checkers as
> a whole and how they interact with the rest of the language.
> "let" was tied down to only be used in assertions
> constructs but now AC needs to inject a non-assertions
> construct back into an assertions context.  Many of
> my earlier concerns are likely going to reappear in
> this context as well.
> 
> In short, there are all sorts of interactions here that are
> not at all obvious to me and could pose major issues unless
> the instantiation points of checkers with covergroups are
> restricted to contexts in which a covergroup type itself
> is a legal declaration.
> 
> 
>>  2089  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2089   
> 
> Similarly here, there are unanswered questions.  If checker
> is "instantiated" in a loop or conditional sequential
> construct, in what state is its "final" block?  What if
> the checker is not sequentially reachable?  The final
> is allowed to read from checker vars -- does that include
> free vars?
> 
> 
> 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.