Subject: RE: sv-bc19-40
From: Jacobi, Dan (dan.jacobi@intel.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 01:26:16 PST
Sorry for the late response, haven't been in for the last two weeks.
This looks like my mistake the posedge and negedge can not be parsed via the
edge_control_specifier token.
I suggest we drop this issue (labeled SV-BC-19-40)
P.S.
does any body know why no more than TWO edge descriptors can be used to
describe the value transitions meaning that the following example is
considered legal
edge[01, 0x] clr
and the following example is not considered legal
edge[01, 0x, x1] clr
Dan Jacobi
-----Original Message-----
From: Shalom Bresticker [mailto:Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:09 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: sv-bc19-40
sv-bc19-40 says,
timing_check_event_control ::=
posedge
| negedge
| edge_control_specifier
edge_control_specifier ::= edge [ edge_descriptor [ , edge_descriptor ]
]
The ?posedge? and ?negedge? keywords are redundant due to the fact that
they can be parsed when parsing the
?edge_control_specifier? token.
This issue is labeled as SV-BC-19-40.
***
I don't understand this comment.
This is specifically discussed in 15.4 of 1364-2001.
It says there,
"The posedge and negedge keywords can be used as a shorthand for certain
edge-control specifiers. For example, the construct:
posedge clr
is equivalent to the following:
edge[01, 0x, x1] clr
Similarly, the construct
negedge clr
is the same as the following:
edge[10, x0, 1x] clr
However, edge-control specifiers offer the flexibility to declare edge
transitions other than posedge and negedge. "
That is, posedge and negedge could be written with edge only,
but they deliberately exist for the sake of convenience.
-- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478"The devil is in the details."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 01:29:30 PST