[sv-cc] RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

Hi Lisa,

I only meant assertion ones only (by "all") to remove as redundant, the
other 2 are needed.  

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:30 AM
To: Jim Vellenga; Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

Hi Jim and Bassam,

If I do a search of D4, I see vpiDefLineNo and vpiDefFile on

36.9: Instance
36.43 Concurrent assertions
36.44 Property declaration (we fixed this one)
36.45 Property specification
36.46 Sequence declaration  (we fixed this one)
36.48 property inst diagram of Multiclock sequence expression
36.73 Attribute

Also, in 36.47 sequence expr was modified by 1503 to add this.

I agree that I need to fix the assertion related ones, but what about
36.9 and 36.73. Is this yet another committee?

Lisa




-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Vellenga
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:44 AM
To: Lisa Piper; 'Bassam Tabbara'
Cc: 'sv-ac@eda.org'; 'sv-cc@eda.org'
Subject: RE: changes for 1503 uploaded

Thanks, Lisa and Bassam.  This looks a lot better.

I do have a continuing concern about the remaining references to
vpiDefLineNo and vpiDefFile.  If they are the same as vpiLineNo and
vpiFile for a sequence inst or property inst, then they are redundant;
if they differ, then they must refer to the corresponding sequence decl
or property decl.  In the latter case they are unnecessaary.  I can't
see them even improving performance of any reasonable VPI-based
application, and their existence would be inconsistent with our practice
for other objects where we separate the declarations from the instances.

Also, what do they mean for a concurrent assertion, if they are not
redundant relative to vpiLineNo and vpiFile?

Regards,
Jim 

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Software Architect                     (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information." 
----------------------------------------------------------  

]-----Original Message-----
]From: Lisa Piper
]Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:50 PM
]To: Bassam Tabbara; Jim Vellenga
]Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
]Subject: 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.