Re: [sv-bc] Suppression of unique/priority glitches

>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>

>I don't think nbas are a concern since the evaluation is still in
>the originator.

I don't believe that is supported by anything in the LRM.  You are
making an assumption, perhaps based on familiarity with particular
implementations.  There is nothing preventing the evaluation from
being done by the subprocess.

Also, there are situations involving NBAs with intra-assignment event
controls which appear to require the subprocess to do evaluations
of those expressions.


>Proposal (off the cuff) -- unique/priority assertions should be
>ignored if they occur during the evaluation of a procedural
>continuous assign or any system task (which would include user
>define arg evaluations as well).
>
>Would anyone worry about those?

I don't think that anyone is likely to worry about them.


>> And I'm not happy about
>> having to treat violations differently in the same function depending
>> on what kind of process it was called from.
>
>
>I too am a bit worried about the potential cost of this but I
>think with a bit of thought it may not be too bad.  I think
>that this could be considered as a specific kind of "disable"
>of a child assertion reporting thread.

Yes, I suppose you can view it as the unique/priority in the
function scheduling the report regardless of the process type, and
process activation disabling any pending reports.  For these unusual
processes, any reports generated could be disabled before suspending
as well.  That is a useful way of thinking about it.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.