[sv-ac] Discrepancies between LRM draft1 and ASWG paper.

Subject: [sv-ac] Discrepancies between LRM draft1 and ASWG paper.
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 14:04:17 PST

• Next message: Faisal Haque: "[sv-ac] Meeting TOmorrow at 9:30 am PST"
• Previous message: Bassam Tabbara: "RE: [sv-ac] Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:06:18 -0600"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi All;

Couple of quick questions concerning differences in these two documents.

1. Assert directives - which is correct? Prefer no parenthesis.

ASWG says

    assert (aname);

LRM says

    assert aname;

2. Unary delay - which is correct required leading ## or not?

ASWG says

    sequence aname;
        ## [1:4] a ##1 b;
    endsequence

LRM says (Note the sentence is not updated and says ";", (on page 5) but does say
           that ";" is optional on the first item.)

    sequence aname;
        [1:4] a ##1 b;
    endsequence

3. Names and description of repeat operators:

    I propose that we follow the PSL naming of these operators instead of creating
    a new name. It will prevent confusion for readers looking for why the functionality
    looks the same but is named differently and for those looking for the functionality
    in the other spec.

    Thanks.

     Adam Krolnik
     Verification Mgr.
     LSI Logic Corp.
     Plano TX. 75074

• Next message: Faisal Haque: "[sv-ac] Meeting TOmorrow at 9:30 am PST"
• Previous message: Bassam Tabbara: "RE: [sv-ac] Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:06:18 -0600"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 14:06:10 PST