| Add Proposal | Add Analysis | Edit Class, Environment, or Release |
| Number | 324
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | 15.1, A.7.5.2 -- Should timing_check_limit be constant_expression?
|
| State | open
|
| Class | errata-discuss
|
| Arrival-Date | Apr 09 2003
|
| Originator | "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
|
| Release | 2001b: 15.1, A.7.5.2
|
| Environment |
|
| Description |
According to 15.1 -- "Like expressions for module path delays, timing check limit values are constant expressions which can include specparams" but in A.7.5.2 and Tables 15-2 through 15-13 timing_check_limit ::= expression Should this be constant_expression? -- Brad |
| Fix |
|
| Audit-Trail |
From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com> To: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: Re: errata/324: 15.1, A.7.5.2 -- Should timing_check_limit be constant_expression? Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:00:18 +0300 > timing_check_limit ::= expression > > Should this be constant_expression? Good question. I reviewed the first part of Ch. 15 about 3 months ago. I believe I had that question also. I put it on a lower priority for several reasons. One reason is that I had many other comments as well, and I wanted to deal with them all together. Another reason, specific to this question, is that I thought that maybe the intention is that the limits need to have a constant value, but are not necessarily restricted syntactically in the same way as "constant_expression". For example, "constant_expression" does not allow hierarchical references. That's just an example. But I don't know for sure whether there is such a problem. Shalom |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology