RE: [sv-ac] 3478 : Why is this not addressed? // sv'09 fails to solve this issue

Should I move it to SV-BC or SV-EC?

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 15:50
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 3478 : Why is this not addressed? // sv'09 fails to solve this issue

This is a more general need.

It would be beneficial in testbenches as well.

Shalom

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:48 PM
To: 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: FW: [sv-ac] 3478 : Why is this not addressed? // sv'09 fails to solve this issue

Forwarding Ben's letter.

Dmitry

From: ben cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 02:34
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: [sv-ac] 3478 : Why is this not addressed? // sv'09 fails to solve this issue

On http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=3478
I feel that his is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The basic issue is that if you have a bidirect, an assertion from inside the DUT would not work all the time when the DUT is instantiated in a higher level of hierarchy:
dut_io: assert property(@ (posedge clk)
      !oe |-> io_data==16'bZ );
// Actually, when !oe, then io_data == whatever is externally driven.
Similarly, from outside the DUT, when the DUT is instantiated,
 outside_dut1: assert property(@ (posedge clk)
     time4dut1_to_drive |-> io_data==whatever_dut1_is_driving );
// However, the whatever_dut1_is_driving cannot currently be easily expressed without digging into the DUT's internals.
http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=3478 was addressed to me by an EDA formal verification company, and I can see the need to express to express the internal and external driving value. I am the champion on this mantis; however, because of the new IEEE rules, I am de-championed. Someone should carry this Mantis. I also believe that the IEEE should allow guest speakers (by invitation only) in the meetings to address or explain certain technical concerns. In my case, I wrote this mantis 3478 and3195.
Thanks,
Ben Cohen
ps. I hope that you're allowed to at least respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.