[sv-ec] RE: Manti 2701, 2514 - response to Tom Alsop's feedback

Tom,

> If there are 
> hundreds or thousands of violations then this gets ugly, but 
> generally speaking I think the majority of the cases will only see 
> one or a handful of violations.  IMHO, I always want to see _all_ 
> the violations at once so I can fix them without having to iterate. 

It's obvious that I didn't make my intent clear enough, sorry. 
If you have some statement that busts the bounds of a queue, 
for sure you want to know about it every time that statement
executes.  What I was trying to do was to ensure that there
was only one warning for each _execution_ of such a statement,
even if it writes many out-of-bounds elements - I don't want
a separate warning for each out-of-bounds element that's written.

For example:

  initial begin: out_of_bounds_test
    int Q2[$:1];
    repeat (2) #5 Q2 = {0,1,2,3};
  end

I would expect that code to give me two warnings,
one at time 5 and one at time 10.  I would *not* 
expect four warnings:
  at time 5:
    attempted write to Q2[2]
    attempted write to Q2[3]
  at time 10:
    attempted write to Q2[2]
    attempted write to Q2[3]

Maybe that's so obvious it's not even worth saying?

> How bout this rewording:
> 
> ?If a write operation to a bounded queue has elements both inside 
> and outside the bound of the queue, the elements writing inside the 
> bound shall succeed, while the elements outside the bound shall be 
> ignored and the implementation shall issue a warning.?

I like it.  Very nice.  Thanks!
-- 
Jonathan Bromley


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