Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Time literal question
From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 16:23:56 PST
I propose the following BNF fix
In A.2.2.3, in delay_value, ADD
| time_literal
-- Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 12:16 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Time literal question
The change would need to instead be, in delay_value, ADD
| time_literal
A related question is why time_literal prohibits real numbers
that that have exponents? This seems like an artificial
restriction. Additionally, the fixed_point_number terminology
introduced in the 3.0 BNF is not correct.
How about removing fixed_point_number, rolling back the
real_number BNF to 1364, and in time_literal replacing
fixed_point_number with real_number?
-- Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Karen
Pieper
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:42 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Time literal question
The reflector bounced this mail.
K
>>From owner-sv-bc Fri Jan 30 17:48:52 2004
>Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.131])
> by server.eda.org (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id
i0V1mfPT021779
> for <sv-bc@eda.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:52 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.104])
> by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp
> id 1AmkFV-0002xb-00 from jamiel@model.com
> for sv-bc@eda.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:41 -0800
>Received: by svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2657.72)
> id <ZH62MK3X>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:41 -0800
>Message-ID:
<F7DECA8E801AD51195F100508BB89DA60AA3B029@svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com>
>From: "LaFlamme, Jamie" <jamiel@model.com>
>To: "'sv-bc@eda.org'" <sv-bc@server.eda.org>
>Subject: Time literal question
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:40 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>The BNF in draft 3 of the 3.1a LRM defines delay_value as:
>
> delay_value ::=
> unsigned_number
> | real_number
> | identifier
>
>Shouldn't delay_value be defined as:
>
> delay_value ::=
> time_literal
> | identifier
>
>to allow delay values like "#1ns" and "#1step"?
>
>Thanks,
>-Jamie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 16:30:47 PST