RE: Verilog-AMS Committee Meeting Reminder - 25 Jan 2007

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 05:52:41 PST
Oh, yes. At most, an attribute would define an optional tool-dependent
behavior. I was just saying that it was not clear to me that an
attribute could not define an optional simulator behavior instead of the
default behavior.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geoffrey.coram@analog.com [mailto:geoffrey.coram@analog.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: verilog-ams
> Subject: Re: Verilog-AMS Committee Meeting Reminder - 25 Jan 2007
> 
> Somewhere in 1364, I thought I read something about tools being
> allowed to ignore any attributes that they don't recognize/
> support, and this should not change simulation results.
> 
> In Marq's proposal, if one does not mark a potential race
> condition with the attribute, the simulator should error out
> when the race condition is detected.
> 
> -Geoffrey
> 
> 
> "Bresticker, Shalom" wrote:
> >
> > This is actually not clear.
> >
> > 1364-2005, 3.8, says,
> >
> > "With the proliferation of tools other than simulators that use
> Verilog
> > HDL as their source, a mechanism is included for specifying
properties
> > about objects, statements, and groups of statements in the HDL
source
> > that can be used by various tools, including simulators, to control
> the
> > operation or behavior of the tool. These properties shall be
referred
> to
> > as attributes. This subclause specifies the syntactic mechanism that
> > shall be used for specifying attributes, without standardizing on
any
> > particular attributes."
> >
> > Shalom
> >
> > > In 3.1.1, option 2 suggests use of an attribute for marking
> > > race conditions.  In 1364, attributes are not supposed to
> > > be used for anything that can change simulation results;
> > > they are in some sense "hints" to be used to help the
> > > simulator perform more efficiently.  I think your option 2
> > > would violate this definition.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Jan 25 05:53:41 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 05:53:59 PST