[sv-cc] RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

Hi all,

I think that all of Jim's comments are now incorporated.  The following
changes were made:

SV-CC review comments:
1. the notes for each callback were replaced with a paragraph at the end
that states what is possible.
2. "variables" was moved from property spec to property declaration,
which is consistent with the BNF and examples in the text.
3. vpiDefFile and vpiDefLineNo were deleted from property declaration
and sequence declaration and the note added:  vpiDefFile and
vpiDefLineNo are deprecated because they are the same as vpiLineNo and
vpiFile
4. The issues of a) not being able to access properties and sequences
that are not instantiated and b) not being able to determine the scope
in which they are defined were fixed.  Specifically, property
declaration and sequence declaration was added to the 36.11 scope
diagram and to the clocking block diagram.  In the process, it was also
noticed that the clocking block diagram should not have had concurrent
assertion so that was removed (you can declare properties and sequences
in clocking blocks but not assert them).

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:10 PM
To: Lisa Piper; Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; Jim Vellenga
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: Re: changes for 1503 uploaded

It used to be allowed (before disallowed and rediscussed ...).

THX. 
-Bassam

----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa Piper <piper@cadence.com>
To: Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; Jim Vellenga
<vellenga@cadence.com>
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org <sv-ac@eda.org>; sv-cc@eda.org <sv-cc@eda.org>
Sent: Mon Dec 17 15:49:05 2007
Subject: RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

 Interesting.  You are not supposed to be able to have a concurrent
assertion in a clocking block. You can define properties and sequences
in a clocking block, but you can't assert them (Mantis 1547 that was
voted down).   So in the clock block diagram, concurrent assertion
should be replaced with property and sequence declaration.  I'll add it
to scope as you and Jim suggested.  Please confirm!

 

Does scope include compilation unit scope? I'm just thinking of Jim's
"canonical decompiler application" criteria.  How is that handled?

 

Lisa

 

________________________________

From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:30 PM
To: Lisa Piper; Jim Vellenga; Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

 

Hi Lisa,

 

I think a good fix for remaining issue (accessing decls for decompile)
is to add property/sequence decl in same location as "concurrent
assertion" shows up in diagrams i.e. in scopes and in clocking block.
[This is consistent with BNF (concurrent_assertion_item_declaration).]

 

Thx.

-Bassam.

 

 

________________________________

From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:15 PM
To: Jim Vellenga; Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: changes for 1503 uploaded

Hi all,

I have updated the 1503 VPI corrections proposal.  The changes are as
follows:

SV-CC review comments:

1.      [JV] Per Jim's discussion, the notes for each callback were
replaced with a paragraph at the end that states what is possible.

2.      variables was moved from property spec to property declaration,
which is consistent with the BNF and examples in the text.

3.      vpiDefFile and vpiDefLineNo were deleted from property
declaration and sequence declaration and the note added:  vpiDefFile and
vpiDefLineNo are deprecated because they are the same as vpiLineNo and
vpiFile

I have NOT addressed the issue that Jim rose about being able to access
property and sequence definitions that are not instantiated.  I think
this needs discussion. Is it as simple as adding the property and
sequence declarations as VPI handles in 38.3.2?  We could say it is
beyond the scope of this but I'd just as soon get it fixed if possible.

<<1503_vpi_071217.pdf>> 

Lisa


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