Subject: RE: [sv-bc] SV3.1 request for clarification
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 11:38:07 PDT
Greetings,
I assume that these corrections will be passed to me for inclusion in the
BNF changes on the LRM 3.1a page?
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Rich
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Jonathan Bromley
Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] SV3.1 request for clarification
Hi Jonathan,
Good catches
1) You are correct. In one of the later 3.1 drafts, we made it illegal
to have regular variables on inout ports. This appears to be one of the
spots in the BNF I missed.
2) Also correct. The BNF should have been someting like *struct
*[*packed*[signing]] ...
Jonathan Bromley wrote:
>hi, I hope this is not an intrusion.
>
>I have some queries on the SV3.1 LRM that have arisen as I've
>been creating presentation and reference material. If they are
>the result of my misunderstanding, please accept my apologies.
>On the other hand, if they reflect genuine ambiguities in the
>LRM, I hope clarifications can be fed in to 3.1a.
>
>
>1) Variables on inout ports
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>It's clear that you cannot have regular variables either
>as, or connected to, an inout port - you need ref port
>to do that. However, the LRM syntax says...
> inout_declaration ::=
> inout [ port_type ] list_of_port_identifiers
> | inout data_type list_of_variable_identifiers
>Is there any example of the second usage that makes sense?
>
>
>2) What does it mean to sign an unpacked struct or union?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The ability to sign a packed struct or union is obviously meaningful
>and useful. However, I can find no reference in the LRM to the meaning
>or utility of signing an unpacked struct, yet it appears to be possible
>from the syntax. What is the effect of "struct [un]signed {...}" ??
>
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>
-- -- David.Rich@Synopsys.com Technical Marketing Consultant http://www.SystemVerilog.org tele: 650-584-4026 cell: 510-589-2625
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 11:38:12 PDT