Re: [sv-bc] Wrong example in protected envelope

I would like to refer this issue to P1735 for a recommendation. Syntax
consistency with VHDL also needs to be addressed if changes are made and
that is best handled from P1735.

/sjd

On 1/21/2010 2:09 PM, Roger Lutz - MTI wrote:
> If the LRM example is missing a comma, where:*
> `pragma protect data_block encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190)
>
> *becomes:*
> **`pragma protect data_block, encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190)
> *
> then this should be the same as saying:
> *`pragma protect data_block
> **`pragma protect encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190)
>
> *which is illegal. I am basing this on the Overview section (sec.
> 34.2), where it states
> that "Interpretation of protected envelopes shall not be altered based
> on whether the
> sequence of pragma expressions occurs in a single protect pragma
> directive or in a
> sequence of protect pragma directives.".
>
> Shouldn't the example look like:
> *`pragma protect encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190), data_block*
>
> Regards,
> Roger
> *
> *Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>> I agree, though I would say that the tool is lenient and not
>> necessarily that it is a bug.
>>
>> In addition:
>>
>> 1. In Syntax 22-8, in the first production:
>>
>> pragma ::=
>> *`pragma *pragma_name [ pragma_expression *{ , *pragma_expression
>> *} *]
>>
>> the curly brackets should not be red.
>>
>>
>> 2. Also in 34.3.1, in the following lines:
>> * *
>>
>> *`pragma protect encoding*=(enctype="raw")
>> *`pragma protect data_method*="x-caesar", data_keyname="rot13", *begin*
>>
>>
>> "enctype" and "data_keyname" should be bold.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shalom
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Surya Pratik Saha
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:28 AM
>> *To:* sv-bc@eda.org
>> *Cc:* Sourasis Das
>> *Subject:* [sv-bc] Wrong example in protected envelope
>>
>> Hi,
>> In SV 2009 LRM, there is an example in "section 34.3.1 Encryption"
>>
>> *`pragma protect data_block encoding=(enctype="raw", bytes=190)*
>>
>> Please note, a comma ',' is missing in between 'data_block' and
>> 'encloding' keyword. But as per the BNF stated in "22.11
>> `pragma", the comma ',' is must. One standard tool passes the
>> case though. Can we assume that is a bug in the tool and LRM
>> needs a correction here. Please clarify, if required I can then
>> file a Mantis.
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Surya
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner*
>> <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
>> and is
>> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

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