RE: [sv-bc] SV-BC Meeting Notice: November 21, 2011 9am PST

Hi,

I am afraid I will not be able to attend this meeting, so I am commenting
in this email.

I think that the semantics of the .* connection are equivalent to a .name
connection for each port not explicitly in the connection list.

A .name connection is equivalent to a .name(name) connection.

A set of .name(expression) connections is equivalent to a set of positional
connections.

The semantics of positional connections for an array of instances are
defined, so the semantics of all the above can be deduced for an array of
instances.

Whether the VPI needs to be able to re-generate the exact source or just the
equivalent set of positional port connections is a requirements issue.

Regards,

Peter.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Maidment, Matthew R
Sent: 16 November 2011 06:38
To: SV-BC
Subject: [sv-bc] SV-BC Meeting Notice: November 21, 2011 9am PST

Hi All.

We need to meet on November 21, 2011 at 9AM to discuss Mantis 3423:

http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3423

Shalom's feedback regarding this issue is:

>> "This proposal discusses a .* connection to an instance array. I
don't think
>> this has been discussed in SV-BC, I don't think it is defined in the
LRM. It is
>> not clear to me that it is even legal, or if it is, what its
semantics are. I
>> think this has to be discussed in SV-BC first. (and also .name
connections to
>> instance arrays)."

And Neil has requested that the SV-BC review.

Please come prepared to discuss.

Thanks.

Matt

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
--
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.