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

Hi Folks:

We talked about 2005 some in SV-AC today.

I mentioned that looking for the event control only in the syntactic
position immediately following the always keyword will be problematic
if users want to write something else before the event control.

The begin-end is an example of this situation.

J.H.

> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
> Reply-To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
> Cc: sv-bc@eda-stds.org
> Content-MD5: OiV7YZKe0iucaiE7ep5/iw==
> X-Received: By mx-sanjose.cadence.com as l9GIpj7T003976 at Tue Oct 16 11:51:45 2007
> X-eda.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
> X-Spam-Status: No, No
> Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> X-eda.org-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
> X-eda.org-MailScanner-From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2007 18:51:47.0544 (UTC) FILETIME=[9AB4E580:01C81025]
> 
> 
> >From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com] 
> 
> >But isn't the first non-event-control statement in a procedural block
> >still something that is well defined?  Is a procedure truly an amorphous
> >loop that can be 'rotated' so randomly by a compiler that we have no way
> >to define this first statement?
> 
> The problem is that the only execution where the first statement in
> the block is guaranteed to be the first one executed is the initial
> one at time zero.
> 
> After that, the first statement executed on a wakeup is going to be
> the one after the event or delay control at which it suspended.  That
> may not be the first non-event-control statement in the block.  The
> loop is not being 'rotated' by the compiler; it is being 'rotated'
> by the user when they decide where to insert an event control.  And
> it can only even be regarded as a 'rotation' if they insert a single
> unconditional event control.
> 
> Gord's proposal focuses on the wakeup, which has a closer correspondence
> to the start of execution of the block than anything based on physical
> position in the block.
> 
> A minor nitpick: an event control is not technically a separate statement.
> It is syntactically a prefix attached to a statement.
> 
> A bigger nitpick:
> 
>   always
>     begin
>       @(a,b)
>         c = a + b;
>     end
> 
> The "first non-event-control statement" in this block is the begin-end
> statement.  But that probably is not what you had in mind.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 

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