RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] Checkers & Formal

I think you got it correct.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:51 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-bc@server.eda.org; 
> sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] Checkers & Formal
> 
> 
> 
> Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> > Gord,
> > 
> > I believe that slides 19-21 of the presentation that Dmitry 
> just sent 
> > address this question.
> 
> 
> Umm, yes, it does in the sense that it agrees with my observation.
> The enables are not inferred in a checker's assertions in the 
> same manner as a normal assertion unless the $inferred_enable is used.
> Or am I reading something incorrectly?
> 
> 
>  From the slides, I believe the rules are something along the 
> lines of the following:
>     if the checker has a $inferred... default for a formal
>        the inference is made at the point of instantiation
>     else if the checker has a declared default
>        the declared default binds at the declaration point and is used
>     else
>        the default of the checker's declaration context is used
> 
> I'm guessing a bit at the priority here since I haven't 
> looked closely enough to see if this is explicitly spelled 
> out somewhere in the set of related Manti.  In addition the 
> conditions under which combinations of these might be errors 
> is not clear to me (can I have $inferred_clock and a default 
> clocking in the declaration?).
> 
> In any case, if I am approximately correct in my 
> understanding, my point stands -- the comment that checker 
> assertions are the same is not always true.  It IS true if 
> the $inferred... is used, but otherwise different clocking 
> inference applies.
> 
> Again, if I am way off base here, please correct me.  I would 
> really like to make sure I'm conceptualizing the 
> relationships here correctly.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> 
> > Shalom
> > 
> >> Now I'm getting confused.  I thought that checker 
> assertions were NOT 
> >> always the same as a substitution in the instantiation point.
> >> In particular, that enable, etc inference is not done unless the 
> >> special $.. forms were used.
> 
> 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel Israel (74) Limited
> > 
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential 
> material for 
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or 
> distribution 
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > 
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
> Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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