Had a couple of questions on draft II of the DAC subset:
(1) In Einstimer (and other tools), there's a notion of
"best", "worst" and "nominal" operating conditions.
There's also an approach in which named sets of operating
conditions are defined for convenience and consistency.
Any thoughts on these?
(2) We are starting to go through the assertions for the
processor demo and were grappling with whether we should
be coding "dcd::" as a prefix to all our assertions.
I gather you are thinking about each of these statements
as a call to a Tcl proc using the namespace convention,
but I note the sample asserts do not include the dcd::
notation. Indeed the context is within a Tcl script
since port names are only resolved at runtime through
calls to other procedures.
Clearly, if one "imports" a set of procedures, that
would make the dcd:: optional of course.
Although we are using Tcl syntax conventions, I have been
thinking about these assertions as "declarative" rather
than "executable". This topic was covered admirably by
Dave Barton in http://www.vhdl.org/dcwg/hm/0133.html
Can you share your thinking? Is the approach for the
demo different from the "real" approach?
Thanks...... Bob
>Here's a second draft proposal for the DCDL subset for the DAC demo.
>I've incorporated some feedback from the early implementation work.
>The changes are:
.
.
.
.
>10. Operating conditions
>
> dcd::operating_conditions
> ?-process <value>?
> ?-voltage <value>?
> ?-temperature <value>?
>
>--
>Mark Hahn phone: (408) 428-5399
>Senior Architect fax: (408) 428-5959
>Cadence Design Systems email: mhahn@cadence.com
>