SVA "seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c"

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davyzhu

Advanced Member level 1
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
494
Helped
5
Reputation
10
Reaction score
2
Trophy points
1,298
Location
oriental
Activity points
4,436
seq_c

Hi,all ,

There is "seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c" in SVA.

Is " seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c " equal to
" (seq_a and seq_b) |-> seq_c "?

Or shall we need only care the last implication (|-> or |=>), thanks!

Best regards,
Davy
 

davyzhu said:
Hi,all ,

There is "seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c" in SVA.

Is " seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c " equal to
" (seq_a and seq_b) |-> seq_c "?

Or shall we need only care the last implication (|-> or |=>), thanks!

Best regards,
Davy
Click to expand...
Davy,
They are quite different. The "and" you refer to is "temporal anding" not "boolean and" (even if it is, it won't match nested implications). A temporal "and" gets satisfied if:

Both seq_q, seq_b start at the same time
The end time of this "composite sequence" is end time of last ending sequence. i.e. say:

seq_b and seq_a starts at clk_10

seq_a ends at clk_20
seq_b ends at clk_30

Then the composite sequence shall end at clk_30

A nested implication is just that - like a nested if in procedural code.

HTH
Ajeetha, CVC
www.noveldv.com
 

    D

    davyzhu

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Hi Ajeetha,

Thanks a lot!
Shall I visualize "seq_a |-> seq_b |-> seq_c " as
[1] "seq_a |-> (seq_b |-> seq_c)"
or
[2] "(seq_a |-> seq_b) |-> seq_c"

Is [1] and [2] different?

Best regards,
Davy
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…