RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker in package ?

Hi Mirek,

 

I don't know the reason why there are limitations on modules, interfaces
etc. in packages. I am not sure I understand your second suggestion.
Could you be more specific and provide an example?

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Mirek Forczek
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:35 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker in package ?

 

Hi Dmitry,

 

I'm not against allowing checker declarations in packages - in general.

 

But still I will keep the following position:

 

    the 'checker' belongs to the 'units' category along with 'module',
'program', 'interface', etc.

 

 

To keep language consistent I would see only 2 possible situations:

 

1) let's allow checkers declarations in packages, but then other 'units'
declarations shall be allowed in package too ...

 

2) none of the 'units' declarations are allowed in a package, (this way
a 2005 LRM line will be kept), 

 

why 'checker' shall be exceptional here ?

 

 

The need for organizing assertions library in a package could be
satisfied with properties and sequences declarations (already allowed in
package), if only property and sequence could contain same set of
seb-declarations as the checker can (i.e.: checkvar declaration - why
not to allow it inside property/sequence ?).

 

Does the lack of 'module', 'program', 'interface' declarations in
package stops people from organizing their design/testbenches libraries
in a package ?

(mayby indeed it stops them, or there is some coding pattern to take
benefit from package anyway - could it be applied with assertions and
checkers too ?)

 

Mirek

 

________________________________

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
Sent: 9 kwietnia 2008 15:50
To: Mirek Forczek; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker in package ?

Hi Mirek,

 

I think that it is natural and important to allow checker declarations
in packages. One of the main checker goales is to serve an assertion
library checker (sorry for confusion because of different use of the
word "checker"). The people will certainly want to organize their
assertion library in a package, and I don't why this should be
forbidden.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Mirek Forczek
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:18 PM
To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker in package ?

 

The "25 Package declarations" section allows to declare checker in a
package.

 

 

Till now I've considered checker as a unit - similar to the other units
such as: module, interface, program, etc.

 

 

Once the module, interface, program, etc. are not allowed to be declared
in a package, there should be no room for checker in a package too,
IMHO.

 

Allowing check in package seems to be inconsistent with the rest of the
package-related language rules, it constitute a special exception for
checker only, and will probably result in a chain of special exceptions
for checker only.

The first one is already in a proposal:

 

The 1800-2005 containes rule:

 

    Packages must not contain any processes.

 

which will be broken now with:

 

    Packages may contain processes inside checkers only.

 

 

As for me: the 1800-2005 statement is an one more argument for:

 

- not to allow check declaration in package,

 

or to:

 

- (consider to) allow checker and other units delcarations in package
..

 

 

 

It is also possible that the original motivation for allowing checkers
declarations in package was to allow (other than sequence and property)
declarations specific for checkers (i.e.: checkvars) - to be part of the
package encapsulated definitions.

 

In such case a move of these definitions from checker scope to the
sequence / property scope shall be considered.

(The sequence and property declarations are already allowed in package.
And they have full parametrization capabilities, so they can be easily
connected with checker interface at the instantiation place.)

 

A checker itself - as a grouping construct - similar to the other
grouping constructs (module, interface, program) do not deserve to be in
a package if the other ones do not deserve the same.

 

 

Regards,

Mirek

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
 
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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