RE: [sv-bc] SV-AC request to review 1769

Gord,
    
   My thoughts on your question :  Would it be "compliant" for an
optimizer to report and elab_fatal error if it does parts of
"elaboration" early?

D4 Sec. 3.10 says

"Although this standard defines the results of compilation and
elaboration, the compilation and elaboration
steps are not required to be distinct phases in an implementation.
Throughout this standard the terms compilation,
compile and compiler normally refer to the combined compilation and
elaboration process. So, for
example, when the standard refers to a "compile time error", an
implementation is permitted to report the
error at any time prior to the start of simulation."


So I would take that to mean the answer to your question is yes.  Given
what 3.10 says I don't think there is really a concept of "early
elaboration" as far a the LRM is concerned as long as it happens prior
to start of simulation, the LRM appears to just consider it "compilation
and elaboration"

Unless, 1769 is making a more distinct line between what is 'compile'
and what is 'elaborate' in which case I believe Sec 3.10 would need to
be modified as well.

~Alex





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Vreugdenhil, Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:59 AM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] SV-AC request to review 1769


I have some issues with the differences between
elab_fatal and elab_error.  Why does there need to be
a difference between a user directed "fatal" and "error"?
What assumptions are being made about how elaboration
occurs and when an "elab_fatal" occurs?  Would it be
"compliant" for an optimizer to report and elab_fatal
error if it does parts of "elaboration" early?

I think that this distinction is treading on areas that
should not be in the LRM; there are too many potential
assumptions about how and when various aspects of
elaboration occur.

It is fine to say that if an elab_error occurs that
no simulation model is produced, but when and how that
decision is made interacts with various tool specific
aspects.

Can you give a specific example of a scenario under
which AC believes that it is important to reason about the behavior
of the two forms in a tool-independent manner that admits
*any* algorithm for elaboration?


At most, if the difference is preserved, I would like
the language for "elab_fatal" weakened to say that
when elab_fatal occurs, the user is not interested in
further errors and an implementation MAY terminate
elaboration immediately (whatever that means).


Gord.


John Havlicek wrote:
> Hi SV-BC:
> 
> In our meeting 2008-02-05, SV-AC approved the following
> request:
> 
>    SV-AC request that SV-BC review and approve 1769.
> 
> 
> J.H.
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.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.