RE: Proposal for Group O (Issue 44), SystemC Flavor of PSL - first detailed draft

Hi Avigail,

I'm still trying to work this out. Although the sketch said that the HDL interpretation would take precedence, it seemed to me that we could do better, because the 'membership' operator requires a LHS that has members, whereas one doesn't usually think of a Boolean as having members. However, I was reminded this morning that a LHS pointer can be interpreted as a Boolean, so what I suggested doesn't work.

I still don't like the simplistic statement in the sketch - it seems to mean that one cannot use -> in SystemC at all, unless we require semantic analysis to guide the parse, which we've been trying to avoid. But perhaps there is no other solution.

Regards,

Erich

| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
| [mailto:owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Avigail Orni
| Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:09 AM
| To: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
| Subject: Re: Proposal for Group O (Issue 44), SystemC Flavor
| of PSL - first detailed draft
|
|
|
|
|
| Hi Erich,
|
| You wrote:
| "In the SystemC flavor, if the operator '->' appears in an
| expression and its left operand is a Boolean, then this
| expression shall be interpreted as a PSL logical implication,
| not as a SystemC member operation."
|
| Is this intentional? I seem to remember that the opposite was
| suggested in a meeting, as you also wrote in the original sketch:
|
| "In such a case, the "HDL" interpretation (member reference)
| should take precedence over the PSL interpretation
| (implication) to resolve the conflict."
|
| Regards,
| Avigail
| _______________________________________________________
| Avigail Orni
| Verification and Testing Solutions Group IBM Haifa Research Laboratory
| Phone: 972-4-829-6396 email: ornia@il.ibm.com
|
|
|
Received on Mon Jan 31 06:17:36 2005