Re: [sv-bc] Errata. always_comb description and the BNF.

You're correct, this is a syntatic restriction.

What Brad really meant in this case is that not all syntactic restrictions
should not be expressed explicitly in the BNF.

Some are better expressed in notes on the side.

Perhaps a footnote to the BNF would be appropriate here.

Shalom

 
> I am not sure why you would call this is a semantic restriction. The LRM
> says:
>
> "Statements in an always_comb shall not include those that block, have
>
> blocking timing or event controls, or fork...join statements."
>
> and if I interpret it correctly, it is incorrect (syntactically) for
> always_comb block
>
> to contain a sub-set of statements. AFAIK, semantics is about analysis
> on a syntactically correct program. If it's illegal to have some
> constructs within a block, I am wondering
>
> how it can be treated as a semantic restriction. That said, I do
> understand that 1364 grammar is far from being ideal, and this
> restriction would require huge changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Krishna.

-- 
Shalom Bresticker                         Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                            Tel: +972 9  9522268
Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                  Fax: +972 9  9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                      Cell: +972 50 5441478
[ ]Freescale Internal Use Only
[ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary