[sv-ac] RE: Call to vote: Due August 22

Hi Erik,

Please, see below.

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: Seligman, Erik
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 02:26
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: Call to vote: Due August 22

Mantis 3033 ____ Yes __X_ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5325&type=bug

A couple of concerns here:

- Does section 17.3.1 still exist but no longer have a title?
[Korchemny, Dmitry] Correct.

- 17.3.1 has three bullet points to clarify behavior of static concurrent assertions in a checker—shouldn’t we have similar bullet points for static deferred assertions, or also mention those in the current ones?
[Korchemny, Dmitry] The following sentence in my proposal is incorrect:
If the checker is instantiated inside another checker, any of its static assertions, both concurrent and deferred, are treated as if instantiated in the parent checker.
I modified it as:
If the checker is instantiated inside some scope, any of its static assertions, both concurrent and deferred, are treated as if instantiated in this scope.
Also I modified the last bullet as:

¾ If the checker is statically instantiated inside another checker, any of its static assertions, concurrent and deferred, are treated as if instantiated in the parent checker, and thus will be treated as procedural assertions also be queued when an instantiation of its toplevel ancestor in the checker hierarchy is visited in procedural code. For example, concurrent assertions will be queued in this case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.