Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 1345: 10.4: "illegal" unique if/case issues

I would prefer disallowing problematic categories, instead of making
their handling implementation-dependent.

-- Brad


-----Original Message-----
From: Warmke, Doug [mailto:doug_warmke@mentor.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:45 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1345: 10.4: "illegal" unique if/case issues

But, the LRM can explicitly specify that results of certain
categories of test cases are "undefined" and are therefore
implementation-dependent.

In that case vendors will be considered to have compliant
implementations, but they won't all work the same way on
the pathological test cases.

There is nothing new about this state of affairs in Verilog.

Regards,
Doug 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:34 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 1345: 10.4: "illegal" unique 
> if/case issues
> 
> >Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill!
> 
> Tool implementers don't have the luxury of only handling typical test
> cases correctly.  We have to handle even the most apparently
> pathological test cases correctly.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> 
> 
>