Re: [sv-bc] RE: Issue #315

Hi Doug,
After reading Section 17.15 once again, I notice two errors:
1) "program" as a bind_target_scope is illegal as program, module and
interface are not allowed to be instantiated within a program.
2) bind_instantiation should include interface_instantiation.
Surrendra
At 12:22 PM 1/25/2005 -0800, Warmke, Doug wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Thanks for the 2nd set of eyes.
>The results are already worth the double check effort!
>
>My comments on these findings:
>
>1. It looks like the bind syntax box was made too small,
> and cut out the bottom part of the text. This needs
> to be fixed, whatever the cause.
>
>2. Regarding your items 1), 2), and 3), this was my editing
> oversight when putting together the proposal. I want to
> have those items deleted from the SV3.1a LRM, since some
> of them are incorrect (like the signals (a,b,c) one) and
> the others are unnecessary redundancy (defining what a program
> block is, explaining that every instance of cpu gets properties
> (it's not even clear properties are being bound here!), and the
> example has been replaced by a more comprehensive example).
> I should have red-penned those sections but somehow overlooked
> that when writing the proposal.
>
> In my opinion the P1800 LRM is good on this front and no
> changes should be made.
>
>3. I just found that there is a misspelling in the example
> binding an interface instance at the top of page 291
> in draft3. "endinterface" is misspelled as "endinteface".
> This was in the original 17.15, but should be fixed now.
>
>I'll enter my items 1. and 3. as a Bugnote in SV #315.
>
>Regards,
>Doug
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Hartoog [mailto:Mark.Hartoog@synopsys.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:24 AM
> > To: Sv-Bc; Warmke, Doug
> > Subject: Issue #315
> >
> > I was suppose to review issue 315 changes as well.
> >
> > I notice that in the bind syntax box in section 17.15 the
> > bind_instantiation rule is missing the interface_instantiation.
> > The interface_instantiation is part of the bind_instantiation
> > rule in Appendix A and it was in the syntax box in 3.1a too.
> > The #315 erratum did not call for this to be deleted.
> >
> > There is some other text that has been deleted and is marked in
> > red, but was not part of issue #315. From the draft 3 LRM I can
> > not see what other item caused this text to be deleted. The
> > LRM makes it look like it was #315. Examples of this are:
> >
> > 1) The sentence:
> > "A program block contains non-design code (either
> > testbench or properties) and executes in the Reactive region,
> > as explained in Section 16.",
> >
> > 2) The two items in the list after the example:
> > -- Ports (a, b,c) get bound to signals (a,b,c) of module cpu.
> > -- Every instance of cpu gets the properties
> >
> > 3) The second example:
> > Example of binding a program instance to a specific instance
> > of a module:
> >
> > bind cpu1 fpu_props fpu_rules_1(a,b,c);
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Hartoog
> > 700 E. Middlefield Road
> > Mountain View, CA 94043
> > 650 584-5404
> > markh@synopsys.com
> >

**********************************************
Surrendra A. Dudani
Synopsys, Inc.
377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300
Marlboro, MA 01752

Tel: 508-263-8072
Fax: 508-263-8123
email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com
**********************************************
Received on Wed Jan 26 06:25:59 2005