Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: Assertions API v0.3
From: Joao Geada (Joao.Geada@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 14:36:23 PST
<laugh>
Thanks ;-)
I guess we do not necessarily need to continue repeating that mistake, we can
keep all additional control constants in their own separate enumeration.
Joao
==============================================================================
Joao Geada, PhD Principal Engineer Verif Tech Group
Synopsys, Inc TEL: (508) 263-8083
344 Simarano Drive, Suite 300, FAX: (508) 263-8069
Marlboro, MA 01752, USA
==============================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org]On Behalf Of
Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:13 PM
To: Joao.Geada@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-cc
Subject: [sv-cc] RE: Assertions API v0.3
It was a mistake which is difficult to correct now since it is part of the
Verilog
standard new version.
Francoise
'
At 06:32 PM 1/14/2003 -0500, Francoise Martinolle wrote:
>That's strange. I will ask the reason for this.
>
>At 06:04 PM 1/14/2003 -0500, Joao Geada wrote:
>>Francoise,
>>
>>looking at the IEEE 1364-2001, I can see that the numeric assignments
>>are independent between vpi types, vpi properties and vpi callbacks, but
>>vpi control constants appear to go into the vpi property number space
>>(the existing 4 control constants are in the range 66-69. For reference,
>>these are in page 771 of the IEEE 1364-2001 LRM)
>>
>>Joao
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 14:38:50 PST