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

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Thu Feb 21 2008 - 13:48:50 PST
>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>

>But that is immaterial to my question.  If you have an auto declaration
>in the enclosing scope, can a checker instance refer to that?  No
>one has (yet) made any restrictions regarding the resolution rules,
>so I am assuming that the answer is yes.

In defense of this part of the proposal, I think the same issue arises
for static variable initializers.  An initializer on a local static
variable could be within the scope of an automatic variable, and I don't
see anything in the LRM restricting it from referencing one.  However,
clearly it cannot be allowed to do so.  Automatic variables are created
by procedural execution entering their scope, and static variable
initializers are not executed in the context of a procedural entry into
the scope.

If concurrent assertions and checkers in procedural code were similarly
static objects, independent of any procedural execution of the code, then
things would be simplified.  However, Mantis 1995 and 2110 break that
conceptual model.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Feb 21 13:50:00 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 21 2008 - 13:50:17 PST