Subject: RE: [sv-cc] FW: [sv-ec] Conflict due to range and packed_dimension
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 11:32:54 PDT
Hi Doug,
I would not get take this too stronly. The method of using footnotes is not
unique to SV-CC. Brad is just working through the BNF and the issues
associated with handling cases of redundant syntax with different semantics.
He sent a later message (http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/hm/1362.html) that decided
it was ok.
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Warmke,
Doug
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:20 AM
To: sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-cc] FW: [sv-ec] Conflict due to range and packed_dimension
Team,
Some dissent in other SV committees on our footnoted BNF approach...
Regards,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Pierce [mailto:Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:03 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Conflict due to range and packed_dimension
Or maybe they are the same.
I did not notice the unusual Footnote 9, which says that packed_dimension is
context-dependent. Specifically, it says "Open-array ([]) form shall only
be used with dpi_proto_formal".
In my opinion, this footnote is another erratum. The desired effect should
be achieved with standard BNF, not with a footnote and context-dependency.
-- Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org]On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:43 AM
To: kausikd@interrasystems.com
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Conflict due to range and packed_dimension
Yes, if the existing rules in the BNF were to be believed, then
{ packed_dimension } [ range ]
would be equivalent to
{ packed_dimension }
But the existing rules for packed_dimension and range in A.2.5 are not
actually the same. Consider, for example, the rules for range_or_type in
A.2.6, which, unlike those for packed_dimension, do not generate the phrase
"[]".
-- Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org]On Behalf Of Kausik
Datta
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:55 AM
To: sv-ec
Subject: [sv-ec] Conflict due to range and packed_dimension
Hi,
The following rule has both packed_dimension and range non-terminals.
BNF sec A.2.2.1
data_type ::=
integer_vector_type [ signing ] { packed_dimension } [ range ]
But rules for packed_dimension and range in sec A.2.5 are same.
Do we really need [range] at all in the BNF? Instead of that we can use
only packed_dimension.
Few other related rules also have the similar problem.
Thanks
Kausik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 11:33:39 PDT