RE: [sv-bc] Minutes: Nov 8 SV-BC CC

Dear SV-BC,

In response to the request for feedback on the direction
Steven's Issue #216 should go, here are my preferences.

1. Under all circumstances, 2-state enums should initialize
   to their first declared value. (Definitely *not* all 0's)

2. Both positions on 4-state enum initialization have good points.
   x's for good for pessimism/safety in hw design.
   First declared (leftmost) value is good for language integrity.
   (e.g. consistency with 2-state initialization, plus the fact
   that enum variables should normally not be allowed to range
   outside the set of their declared values).

   Currently I lean toward x's for hardware design friendliness.

If we go with x's for 4-state enum value initialization,
then I would prefer to see inconsistency with 2-state initialization
than to see 2-state enum variables forcibly initialized to all 0's.
This would be very bad for software-oriented modeling using SV.

If we go with first declared value for 4-state enum initialization,
then that wouldn't be the end of the world. Linters and other static
check tools will help ferret out unsafe use of 4-state enum variables,
not to mention good old gate-vs-rtl simulation mismatches.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:37 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] Minutes: Nov 8 SV-BC CC
>
> The minutes from the Nov 8 CC have been posted here:
>
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/minutes/sv-bc_04_11_08.txt
>
> Per my action item, previous meeting minutes have also
> been updated here:
>
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/minutes/
>
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt Maidment
> mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
>
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 8 22:45:06 2004