[sv-cc] 1741 proposal issue

 
Charles and others,

Brad came up with a question after reading the proposal for 1741.
In the example he gave below, is the unamed begin/end a scope?
It does not contain directly a local variable declaration, but it
contains
another named block declaration which also contains a variable.
Presumably there should be a non portable hierarchical name to the
variable v.

Same question if the BLK block does not contain the variable v.
What about if the BLK block or the unamed block contains a type
declaration or a parameter declaration?
Is the unamed block not a scope?

We feel that the definition of when an unamed block is a scope is not
strict and complete.
Please add this proposal back on the list to discuss next week.

Francoise
    '



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:38 PM
To: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST

Regarding http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1741 , not
necessarily an objection, but  ...

     "An unnamed begin or unnamed fork shall be a scope if and only if
it contains local variable declarations."

Yet it's still true, isn't it, that the unnamed begin below is not a
scope and that a hierarchical reference to BLK.v from outside the
unnamed begin would be legal?

    begin
      begin : BLK
        var v = 1'b1;  // This decl is not contained in the unnamed
begin?
      end
    end

-- Brad


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