http://www.eda-twiki.org/mantis/view.php?id=4956 From: darren.galpin@infineon.com [mailto:darren.galpin@infineon.com] Sent: 08 July 2014 15:57 To: Hannes Froehlich; damian.savage@nxp.com; geryo@frontier.com; svenka3@gmail.com Cc: andy@piziali.dv.org; ieee1647@eda.org; stefan@amiq.com Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 But we can still choose to include more if we so wish, even after the donation period. Please could you add it to Mantis, and we can then decide at a later date whether to include it or leave it for a future revision. Cheers, Darren From: Hannes Froehlich [mailto:hannes@cadence.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 3:24 PM To: Galpin Darren (IFGB ATV MCD SIP CV); damian.savage@nxp.com<mailto:damian.savage@nxp.com>; geryo@frontier.com<mailto:geryo@frontier.com>; svenka3@gmail.com<mailto:svenka3@gmail.com> Cc: andy@piziali.dv.org<mailto:andy@piziali.dv.org>; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; stefan@amiq.com<mailto:stefan@amiq.com> Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 Well, we started on the new rev of 1647 about a year ago, and time doesn’t stand still, so SN R&D keep adding more . . . I believe that particular feature was added after the donation period. -hannes From: darren.galpin@infineon.com<mailto:darren.galpin@infineon.com> [mailto:darren.galpin@infineon.com] Sent: 08 July 2014 15:18 To: Hannes Froehlich; damian.savage@nxp.com<mailto:damian.savage@nxp.com>; geryo@frontier.com<mailto:geryo@frontier.com>; svenka3@gmail.com<mailto:svenka3@gmail.com> Cc: andy@piziali.dv.org<mailto:andy@piziali.dv.org>; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; stefan@amiq.com<mailto:stefan@amiq.com> Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 Hi Hannes, And as that wasn’t in the last standard, should it be in this one? I don’t think this was in any of the donated material..... Cheers, Darren From: Hannes Froehlich [mailto:hannes@cadence.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 3:10 PM To: Damian Savage; Genadi Osowiecki; 'Srinivasan Venkataramanan' Cc: 'Andrew Piziali'; Galpin Darren (IFGB ATV MCD SIP CV); ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; 'stefan birman' Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 Hi Damian, As per customer request (not sure if it was you) Specman 14.1 now supports wrealZState and wrealXState on real ports. What’s new in 14.1: “1.7.4 wrealXState and wrealZState values for nettype interface (wreal) Now Supported Ports of reals in general, and ports of net types specifically, can now access (write and read) wrealZState and wrealXState values. For details, see Accessing MVL with Port of real in the Specman Integrators Guide. ” -hannes From: Damian Savage [mailto:damian.savage@nxp.com] Sent: 08 July 2014 15:03 To: Genadi Osowiecki; Hannes Froehlich; 'Srinivasan Venkataramanan' Cc: 'Andrew Piziali'; 'Darren Galpin'; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; 'stefan birman' Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 I think that x and z values are essential for modelling - x is also used in CPF to turn the ‘power’ off - z is obligatory for tristate buses, or undriven nodes But they are already managed in e using the 4 state {0,1,x,z} compare “===”, “!==” and get_mvl(), put_mvl() methods right? In addition we only need to handle these values at the HDL interface. Unfortunately there’s no support in e to read/write z’s from analog ports (real). Best regards Damian From: Genadi Osowiecki [mailto:geryo@frontier.com] Sent: mardi 8 juillet 2014 15:08 To: 'Hannes Froehlich'; 'Srinivasan Venkataramanan' Cc: Damian Savage; 'Andrew Piziali'; 'Darren Galpin'; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; 'stefan birman' Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 I have recently started working with SV (for the first time, after being an ‘e’ practitioner for two decades)… In SV there are data-types to support both 2-value logic as well as those that support Xs, Us, Zs, and so on. I discovered that the more experienced DV engineers (more experienced with SV, not necessarily DV) were choosing to use the data types that support Xs, as this gave them the flexibility of quickly recognizing that a variable has not been initialized…. Frankly, I’m sticking with using the “e-equivalent” 2-value logic, as it makes me “feel at home”, but I can’t help but think that perhaps supporting Xs (or perhaps Us) might have some merit… Cheers, Gery O. From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org> [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Froehlich Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:59 AM To: Srinivasan Venkataramanan Cc: Damian Savage; Andrew Piziali; Darren Galpin; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org>; stefan birman Subject: RE: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 Hello Srini, I’m not an expert on X propagation, but to me it is very much related to RTL and synthesis. Also, it’s no specifically a functional verification issue, but more a structural one (looking at how a possible X could affect RTL structure vs gate level). In my opinion this can’t really be addressed by e and is very much related to RTL simulation and synthesis. -hannes From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org> [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org] On Behalf Of Srinivasan Venkataramanan Sent: 26 June 2014 18:42 To: stefan birman Cc: Damian Savage; Andrew Piziali; Darren Galpin; ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org> Subject: Re: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 I like the way Darren has positioned it to distinguish e vs. HDLs. So from a pure eWG perspective I don't see an issue in closing. However let's also recognise that we are hearing more and more "X-pessism verification" stories emerging from both vendors and customers in the recent times. There are formal based solutions/apps and also every simulation tool seems to add these capabilities in the recent past. Being an advanced functional verification language (and methodology to a large extent), are we overlooking something here? Or do we need a closer study of these proposed solutions, or more importantly the problem in deep to see if e would need to address this in near future. Regards Srini On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:22 PM, stefan birman <stefan@amiq.com<mailto:stefan@amiq.com>> wrote: I vote to close this issue. Stefan On 26/06/201426 15:14, Damian Savage wrote: me too -----Original Message----- From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org> [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org>] On Behalf Of Andrew Piziali Sent: jeudi 26 juin 2014 14:04 To: Darren Galpin Cc: ieee1647@eda.org<mailto:ieee1647@eda.org> Subject: Re: WG Ballot - Accept closure of http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3386 Darren, Yuri asked: ... Do you accept closing this issue as rejected on the basis that it applies to HDL languages only? Yes, I vote to close this issue. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jul 8 08:09:27 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 08 2014 - 08:09:30 PDT