Re: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Question on 'Unpacked array concatenation'

Hi Brad,
By reading the pdf files, it seems to me, to pass some example of queue, 
this concept comes in the picture. But I am sure, it will create a lot 
of confusion, complexity in future when tools will start implementing. I 
have very bad experience already from tool level when we transform from 
SV3.1a syntax to 1800 syntax for assignment pattern. And we should avoid 
same thing again in future.
So I feel, we should go back and recheck this section little bit from 
technical implementation point of view.

Also I did not get the answer of my question - whether 'Unpacked array 
concatenation' is considered as aggregate expression or not, as 
comparison etc. will be allowed or not on that.

Regards
Surya



-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Question on 'Unpacked array concatenation'
From: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
To: sv-bc@eda.org <sv-bc@eda.org>
Cc: "sv-ec@eda.org" <sv-ec@eda.org>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:29:57 PM
> Surya,
>
> I think you are referring to
>
>    http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1702
>    http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=520
>
> so cc'ing in the SV-EC.
>
> -- Brad
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Surya Pratik Saha [spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] Question on 'Unpacked array concatenation'
>
> Hi,
> I have following question on 'Unpacked array concatenation'. Does it
> apply only on one dimensional unpacked array, or more than one
> dimensional array also can be assigned? For e.g.
>
> int x[1:0][2:0];
> int y[2:0];
> x = {y, y}; // is it valid?
>
> Also do we consider 'Unpacked array concatenation' as aggregate
> expression? LRM is not clear enough on that.
>
> I feel 'Unpacked array concatenation' concept is too much context
> dependent having similar syntax with concatenation, which will make very
> complex to implement semantic checks/ expression evaluation etc. for the
> vendors when hierarchical reference/ forward typedefs etc. will be
> involved. Can we not use different syntax to support it?
>
> --
> Regards
> Surya
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com
>
>   




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