Mark Christiaens Posted August 9, 2018 Report Share Posted August 9, 2018 I've noticed this in the PSS grammar: action_declaration ::= [ abstract ] action action_identifier [ action_super_spec ] { { action_body_item } }[ ; ] ... action_body_item ::= activity_declaration | overrides_declaration | constraint_declaration | action_field_declaration | symbol_declaration | covergroup_declaration | exec_block_stmt | static_const_field_declaration | action_scheduling_constraint | attr_group | compile_assert_stmt | inline_covergroup | action_body_compile_if ... constraint_declaration ::= [ dynamic ] constraint identifier { { constraint_body_item } } | constraint { { constraint_body_item } } | constraint single_stmt_constraint But example 3 goes like this: enum config_modes_e {UNKNOWN, MODE_A=10, MODE_B=20, MODE_C=35,MODE_D=40}; component uart_c { action configure { rand config_modes_e mode; constraint { mode != UNKNOWN; }; } }; The line constraint { mode != UNKNOWN; }; ^ | |Illegal semicolon? is a constraint_declaration used as an action_body_item inside an action_declaration. The grammar says that the constraint_declaration should not be terminated by a semicolon. Which is correct: the example or the grammar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tfitz Posted November 16, 2022 Report Share Posted November 16, 2022 This has been fixed in 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.