Re: errata/3: Inconsistent restrictions on system tasks in constant functions (fwd)

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 08:50:02 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "Re: errata/163: PROPOSAL - document formatting problems"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/3; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    To: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: errata/3: Inconsistent restrictions on system tasks in constant
      functions (fwd)
    Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:40:03 +0300 (IDT)

     Considering that we are not currently working on this issue, and there is an
     open contradiction in the LRM, and it is known that the VSG once decided on a
     particular resolution and that the contradiction is a result of a mistake in
     editing the LRM, and that we are about to start publishing drafts, and we have a
     chance to quickly issue a revision of 1364-2001 with errata corrections,
     
     THEREFORE I propose that we accept for now the past decision of the VSG (to
     delete bullet 5), and simultaneously open a new issue for re-examination of the
     constant function issue.
     
     Shalom
     
     
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
     Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:51:16 +0300
     
     Update from ETF meeting 2002-08-12:
     
     1. The original erratum entry refers to section 10.3.5. It says,
     
     "Constant functions ... shall meet the following constraints:"
     
     Bullet 3 then says, "All system tasks .. shall be ignored."
     
     Bullet 5 says, "The only system task that may be invoked is $display,
     and it shall be ignored when invoked at elaboration time."
     
     These two bullets are contradictory.
     
     
     2. The source of the problem was traced to an improper correction
     from Draft 5 to Draft 6.
     
     Draft 5 was the original ballot version.
     In that version, bullets 3 and 4 did not exist.
     Draft 6's bullet 5 was bullet 3 in Draft 5.
     
     Cadence objected to that bullet in ballot comment CDS09,
     "What is special about $display?".
     
     The WG resolution to that comment was supposed to be replacing that
     bullet
     with two new bullets, which appear as bullets 3 and 4 in Draft 6,
     allowing, but ignoring, all system tasks.
     
     This was documented in a mail from Yatin Trivedi to 1364 WG on
     2000-12-04,
     containing all ballot comments and their resolutions in an .xls file.
     It was not to the BTF, so it is not in BTF archives.
     I have a copy of the mail and the .xls file.
     
     The correction was incorrectly made.
     The two new bullets were added, but the original bullet referencing
     $display
     was not deleted.
     
     
     3. If we had left the WG ballot resolution as is, it would be a simple
     erratum.
     However, in the ETF meeting on 2002-08-12, the entire subject came up
     for reconsideration.
     I understood the issues as follows:
     Should system tasks be allowed at all in constant functions?
     How can the compiler distinguish between constant functions
     and regular functions, and thereby apply different rules to them?
     
     Shalom
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 08:50:46 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.