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

So would I. 

Alternately, if they are so useful that they need to be allowed, then
their behavior should be well-defined. But I do not believe that is the
situation here. (Of course, there are always exceptions.)

Users hate implementation-dependent behavior.

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:55 AM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: 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
> >
> >
> >
> >