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

Nevermind...it looks like this has been done in the most recent version.

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Little Scott-B11206
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:43 AM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Call to vote: Due August 22

Hi Dmitry:

I have realized part of my misunderstanding. The language/organization of 17.5 is confusing...particularly the first paragraph. I thought that always procedures were no longer allowed, but the first paragraph of 17.5 makes me think that they are. Tom asked that always be taken out of the Courier font which may help.

The way I read those paragraphs is that the first paragraph provided restrictions for using always and the second paragraph provided restrictions for using always_comb, always_latch, and always_ff. Why do you not merge the information in the first paragraph into the itemized list in the second paragraph? I think that would be much more clear.

Thanks,
Scott

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:34 AM
To: Little Scott-B11206; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: Call to vote: Due August 22

Hi Scott,

Please, see below.

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 18:09
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

I apologize for the large change set. This is the first time I have thoroughly reviewed this proposal.

In the changes to 16.4.3 you define the term static deferred assertion. Why not use it in the final change for that section? For example, "Static deferred assertions in checkers are described in 17.3."

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Done.

In the changes to 17.3.1 please move the WITH out of the itemized list.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Fixed.

In the changes to 17.3.1 toplevel is missing a hyphen in the original and changed text.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Fixed

In the code example in 17.3.1 you should fix the ' as it has been changed in D2.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Fixed. This is not essential in the black text.

In the final change to 17.3.1 it states that p3 is checked continuously. I don't really like that description. My understanding is that it is checked whenever a changes. To me continuously implies that I need to check it at every cycle which I don't believe is the case.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Done. Logically the two are equivalent.

In the changes to 17.5, I believe that the language is too loose. I think that in the first paragraph the term general purpose always procedure should be used (see 9.2.2) as it is more precise.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] If you are talking about the following statement: "The following forms of always procedures are allowed in checkers: always_comb, always_latch, and always_ff." then I disagree. General purpose always procedures are deprecated in checkers.

  I would also prefer to see the final sentence in the second paragraph before the itemized list read, "These forms of checker always procedures may contain the following statements:"

[Korchemny, Dmitry] I would keep the original statement: always procedures may contain statements, not the forms of always procedures.

In 17.7.1 it looks like example missed the red strikethrough for some reason.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Fixed. I am always struggling with Word as it periodically changes the color coding on its own. This is why there are so many complaints about it.

In 17.7.1, why is the final item (The left hand side...) not bulleted?

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Fixed. Same comment as above.

In regard to C.2.7 I am confused. I thought that the first paragraph in 17.5 states that always procedures are allowed then this section seems to say they are not. This needs to be clarified.

[Korchemny, Dmitry] I think this is clarified by deprecation. I cannot state explicitly in 17.5 that general purpose always procedures are disallowed in checkers because they are allowed but deprecated. The LRM policy not to mention deprecated constructs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.