{Disarmed} Re: [sv-champions] RE: [sv-ac] Errata in section 17, checker

Stuart,
I updated http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=4154 and that is a
child of
http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=3232
The update was because bus size needs corrections in 2 places, the checker
declaration and the checker instantiation.

There is a P1800-2012 Ballot Resolution Technical Committee (TC) on May 21st
, and my mantis will be addressed there.
Ben

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Stuart Sutherland <
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> wrote:

> Ben,****
>
> ** **
>
> My definition of editorial correction is a little more strict: Editorial
> corrections are primarily limited to fixing font, spelling, and punctuation
> errors, and simple grammatical corrections. Changes to wording, or
> adding/deleting text are beyond simple editorial fixes.****
>
> ** **
>
> Of the corrections you have requested, I would classify changing always to
> always_ff and adding the vector size to "bus" as editorial, and will make
> those correction in the re-ballot draft. The remaining requested changes,
> no matter how obvious, will need to be filed as a Mantis item for committee
> consideration in a future version of the standard.****
>
> ** **
>
> Stu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Sutherland****
>
> Sutherland HDL, Inc.****
>
> stuart@sutherland-hdl.com****
>
> 503-692-0898
> www.sutherland-hdl.com ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rich, Dave
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:24 PM
> *To:* hdlcohen@gmail.com
>
> *Cc:* sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Korchemny, Dmitry; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com;
> Bresticker, Shalom; sv-xc@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-champions] RE: [sv-ac] Errata in section 17, checker****
>
> ** **
>
> Ben,****
>
> ** **
>
> I am about to send out an e-mail describing how the IEEE ballot review
> process works. Regardless of how trivial, we are only allowed to vote on
> comments made during the ballot process, which is now closed. The only way
> to get a change like this in the ballot process is if this text touches one
> of the existing comments, or you can convince the editor that is only an
> editorial change.****
>
> ** **
>
> Dave ****
>
> Mentor Graphics**
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ben Cohen [mailto:hdlcohen@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:15 PM
> *To:* Rich, Dave
> *Cc:* sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Korchemny, Dmitry; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com;
> Bresticker, Shalom; sv-xc@eda.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] Errata in section 17, checker****
>
> ** **
>
> I filed http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=4154 ****
>
> Dave, those changes are not that severe; they could easily be approved by
> an sv-ac phone meeting, and can be handled in less than 15minutes. I don't
> know if we can get that approved. ****
>
> Ben ****
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com> wrote:
> ****
>
> Ben,****
>
> ****
>
> These may be minor issues, but in my opinion, are beyond what are
> considered “editorial” changes. I delineate an editorial change to be one
> that could be made by someone with no knowledge of the standard and yet
> they would be reasonably confident that the change would have no impact on
> the meaning of the text.****
>
> ****
>
> Please file a mantis issue and we can deal with this in the next revision
> of the standard.****
>
> ****
>
> Dave ****
>
> Mentor Graphics****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Cohen
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:54 PM
> *To:* sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Korchemny, Dmitry; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com;
> Bresticker, Shalom
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Errata in section 17, checker****
>
> ****
>
> Here is a list of needed fixed. Did not file a mantis. Will do one if
> needed. ****
>
> Those are minor, and may be handled by Stuart directly. ****
>
> *17.3 Checker instantiation*****
>
> ...****
>
> module m(wire bus, logic clk);****
>
> ...****
>
> On each rising edge of clk the bits of bus are checked for mutual exclusion
> ****
>
> [Ben] bus is defined as a single bit, thus to states that "the bits of
> bus" is incorrect. ****
>
> Change needed: ****
>
> module m(wire*[31:0]* bus, logic clk); ****
>
> -------------------------****
>
> *17.4 Context inference*****
>
> checker check_in_context (logic test_sig,****
>
> event clock = $inferred_clock,****
>
> logic reset = $inferred_disable);****
>
> ...****
>
> module m(logic rst);****
>
> wire clk;****
>
> logic a, en;****
>
> wire b = a && en;****
>
> // No context inference****
>
> check_in_context my_check1(.test_sig(b), *.clock(clk)*, .reset(rst));**
> **
>
> [Ben] I think that the intent here was for the clocking event to be
> posedge clk and not clk ****
>
> Change needed****
>
> check_in_context my_check1(.test_sig(b), *.clock(posedge clk)*,
> .reset(rst)); ****
>
> ---------------------****
>
> 17.5 Checker procedures****
>
> checker clocking_example (logic sig1, sig2, default_clk, rst,****
>
> event e1, e2, e3 );****
>
> ..****
>
> always @(e1) begin: p1_block****
>
> ..****
>
> always @(e2 or e3) begin: p2_block****
>
> ...****
>
> always @(rst or e3) begin: p3_block****
>
> ..****
>
> [Ben] The "always" is illegal in a checker. We need the always_ff****
>
> Change to****
>
> always_ff @(e1) begin: p1_block ****
>
> always_ff @(e2 or e3) begin: p2_block ****
>
> always_ff @(rst or e3) begin: p3_block ****
>
> ****
>
>
> --
> 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.