| Number | 182
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | Syntax 9-8: event_control
|
| State | lrmdraft
|
| Class | errata-simple
|
| Arrival-Date | Oct 31 2002
|
| Originator | Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
|
| Release | 2001b, 9.7 (Syntax 9-8), 9.7.7 (Syntax 9-12), A.6.5, Syntaxes 9-1, 9-2
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
Syntax 9-8 says event_control may be @ event_identifier or @ ( event_expression ) ... etc. where event_identifier ::= identifier and event_expression includes hierarchichal_identifier. This seems to imply that @a.b should be illegal and you would have to write @(a.b). Yet I see that Verilog-XL accepts the @a.b form. Should event_control be changed to @ hierarchical_event_identifier | @ ( event_expression ) ... ? |
| Fix |
In A.6.5 and Syntaxes 9-1, 9-2, 9-8, 9-12 change event_control ::= @ event_identifier | @ ( event_expression ) | @ * | @ ( * ) event_expression ::= expression | hierarchical_identifier | posedge expression | negedge expression | event_expression or event_expression | event_expression , event_expression to event_control ::= @ hierarchical_event_identifier | @ ( event_expression ) | @ * | @ ( * ) event_expression ::= expression | posedge expression | negedge expression | event_expression or event_expression | event_expression , event_expression |
| Audit-Trail |
From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: Re: errata/182: Syntax 9-8: event_control Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:24:19 -0800 >Category: errata >Confidential: no >Originator: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> >Release: 2001b >Class: TBD >Description: Also, as Dan Jacobi pointed out, the "hierarchical_identifier" production should be removed from "event_expression", because it adds ambiguity. A hierarchical_identifier is an expression. event_expression ::= expression | hierarchical_identifier <---- remove | ... -- Brad From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: Re: errata/182: PROPOSAL Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:32:53 -0800 In A.6.5 and Syntax 9-8 change event_control ::= @ event_identifier | @ (event_expression) | @ * | @ ( * ) event_expression ::= expression | hierarchical_identifier | posedge expression | negedge expression | event_expression or event_expression | event_expression , event_expression to event_control ::= @ hierarchical_event_identifier | @ (event_expression) | @ * | @ ( * ) event_expression ::= expression | posedge expression | negedge expression | event_expression or event_expression | event_expression , event_expression From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/182 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:56:58 +0200 (IST) >Category: errata >Confidential: no >Originator: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com >Release: 2001b >Class: TBD >Description: I don't see any necessary connection between them. However, if you really want to bundle them together, then it is clear to me that it is delay_value that has to change to allow a hierarchical_identifier. > >However we handle #182, either both #a.b and @a.b should be allowed, > >or neither should be allowed. > > NC-Verilog and Verilog-XL allow both. At any rate, it sounds like more > discussion is called for, to change either #182 or #174. From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/182 - Syntax 9-8: event_control Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 09:55:51 +0200 (IST) >Category: errata >Confidential: no >Originator: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com >Release: 2001b >Class: TBD >Description: Another point for thought: In the proposal, event_control ::= @ hierarchical_event_identifier | @ ( event_expression ) | @ * | @ ( * ) Presumably "hierarchical_event_identifier" would have to change to hierarchical_event_identifier { "[" expression "]" } . Shalom > I don't see any necessary connection between them. > However, if you really want to bundle them together, > then it is clear to me that it is delay_value that has to change to allow a > hierarchical_identifier. > > > >However we handle #182, either both #a.b and @a.b should be allowed, > > >or neither should be allowed. > > > > NC-Verilog and Verilog-XL allow both. At any rate, it sounds like more > > discussion is called for, to change either #182 or #174. > |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology