Re: [sv-bc] FYI: New proposal for 2476 posted

Thanks for forwarding this Brad.

AC members -- wouldn't it be cleaner to have all the new count..
routines be subsumed by a single "countvals" routine that takes
a vector and a series of 1 to 4 scalars and counts all the occurrences
of those values?

Ex.
     $countones(expr) is $countvals(expr, 1'b1);
     $count1XZ(expr) is $countvals(expr, 1'b1, 1'bx, 1'bz);
     $countX(expr) is $countvals(expr, 1'bx);

That way one could parameterize the behavior more easily in user code,
particularly if one said that "redundant" bits were only counted once;
i.e. $countvals(expr, 1'b1) == $countvals(expr, 1'b1, 1'b1)

Gord

On 1/17/2011 4:06 PM, Brad Pierce wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:01 PM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Kulshrestha, Manisha; Bresticker, Shalom; Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] New proposal for 2476 posted
>
> Hi guys-- I've posted a new version of 2476 at http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2476 . It attempts to also cover 1559, 3036, and 3037, incorporating Dmitry's recent suggestions. Please take a look& send comments if you can.
>
> Also, tomorrow we should be sure to discuss 2938 and 2804 (items I owned that were bounced back by champions) now that I'm back from vacation.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:15 AM
> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; Seligman, Erik; Bresticker, Shalom; Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: arguments for system functions: fixes to 2476? (or 1559. 3036)
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote two proposal sketches on this subject. They are not complete proposals yet, but show how the definitions may be extended to arbitrary data types, including dynamic ones.
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:03 PM
> To: Seligman, Erik; Bresticker, Shalom; Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] RE: arguments for system functions: fixes to 2476? (or 1559. 3036)
>
> Hi,
>
> I think $isunknown should also work on bit streams as this function also
> checks each bit.
>
> Manisha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 3:49 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Kulshrestha, Manisha; Tapan Kapoor;
> sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: arguments for system functions: fixes to 2476? (or 1559.
> 3036)
>
> Oops, it looks like we need to add the argument types for $onehot,
> $onehot0, $isunknown and $countones to 2476. Or move this issue to
> other proposals& modify the problem statement for 2476.
>
> Are these the types we should specify?:
>
> $onehot (<expression>)
> $onehot0 (<expression>)
> $countones ( expression)
> expression = any bit-stream type (6.24.3)
> $isunknown (<expression>)
> expression = any legal SV expression (or do we have to limit this one
> to bit streams too?)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:00 PM
> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@eda.org
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] RE: arguments for system functions
>
> Hi,
>
> Mantis 1559 is "To which types can $countones be applied?". That issue
> is still open.
>
> Mantis 2476 is " Need clarification about system functions $onehot,
> etc", and the description is
> "A clarification is needed what can the argument type of system
> functions $onehot, $onehot0, $isunknown and $countones be and where
> these functions may be used - in assertions only or everywhere in
> expressions."
> However, I don't see that the approval proposal to 2476 addresses the
> argument type issue.
>
> Mantis 3036 is "Explicitly allow unpacked data types for arguments of
> assertion system functions".
>
> If 2476 will not address this issue, then no current Mantis addresses
> it, I think, and probably 1559 should be expanded to cover the other
> similar functions as well.
>
> Regards,
> Shalom
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>> Kulshrestha, Manisha
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:53 AM
>> To: Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@eda.org
>> Subject: [sv-ac] RE: arguments for system functions
>>
>> Hi Tapan,
>>
>> It is not clear from the description if $onehot0 etc. have to follow
>> the
>> same restrictions on the expression as in expressions in assertions.
>> Since these functions can be used outside of assertions, it is better
>> to
>> describe what kind of arguments can be passed to them.
>>
>> Manisha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tapan Kapoor [mailto:tkapoor@cadence.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:19 PM
>> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@eda.org
>> Subject: RE: arguments for system functions
>>
>> Hi Manisha,
>>
>> The argument to these function is "expression", which is also an
>> argument to immediate assertions (16.3), deferred assertions (16.4)
> and
>> sampled value functions like $rose, $fell (deal with LSB of
> expression)
>> in section 16.9.3. These are also potential candidates if any
>> definition
>> change is to be considered.
>>
>> Section 16.6 does provide some sort of definition (which more of set
> of
>> restrictions) for the expression that can appear in sequence and
>> property expressions. I tend to agree that this definition is not good
>> enough for all the constructs (discussed in clause 16).
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Tapan
>>
>> "You must be the change you want to see in the world" : Mahatma Gandhi
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Kulshrestha, Manisha
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:21 AM
>>> To: sv-ac@eda.org
>>> Subject: [sv-ac] arguments for system functions
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently LRM does not define what type of expressions can be used in
>>> system functions $onehot, $onehot0 etc. (these functions are defined
>> in
>>> 16.12.). Since the expression passed to these function should be
>>> converted to a bit vector before doing any analysis on it, is it OK
> to
>>> restrict the expression to be an integral type (6.11.1) ? Or probably
>>> that was the intension initially but never got documented.
>>>
>>> Comments ?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Manisha
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.