[sv-ac] RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal - hopefully finally I got it right...

Ed,

For clarity, the change to property_case_item in Syntax 16-19 should include red cross-outs of what is being deleted.

Thanks,
Shalom

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 20:58
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Eduard Cerny; Prabhakar, Anupam
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal - hopefully finally I got it right...

Hi Shalom, all,

Thank you for catching this one...

I have uploaded what is hopefully the final version.

Best regards
ed

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]<mailto:[mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 7:53 AM
To: Eduard Cerny; Prabhakar, Anupam
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal - hopefully finally I got it right...

Hi,

The BNF of property_case_item in Syntax 16-19 also needs to be changed.

I would have preferred that there be a mandatory delimiter after property_expr in a case_item (unless the property_expr is an if-else or a case-endcase), but I don't think it is really a problem.

Under the restrictions of the circumstances, it seems a good resolution.

Shalom

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 23:00
To: Prabhakar, Anupam
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal - hopefully finally I got it right...

Hi,

thanks to Anupam I have located the last issue - redundant definition.

Attached and uploaded ...

best...
ed

From: Prabhakar, Anupam [mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]<mailto:[mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Eduard Cerny
Cc: Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM<mailto:Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM>; Kulshrestha, Manisha
Subject: RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Hi Ed,

It is all too confusing - glad we are fixing this. I guess you meant property_spec (instead of property_statement below) - I would keep property_spec and remove property_statement_spec (and also property_statement which you already have). And then you just need to use property_spec (instead of property_statement_spec) in the property_declaration.

Anupam

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]<mailto:[mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:23 PM
To: Prabhakar, Anupam; Eduard Cerny (Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com<mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>)
Cc: Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM<mailto:Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM>; Kulshrestha, Manisha
Subject: RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Hi Anupam,

now I see what you mean, it was not in the proposal but rather missing modif still to be done. It seems that it would be simpler to keep property_statement and modify it rather than keep property_statement_spec which requires other changes as you pointed out.
Agree?

thanks
ed

From: Prabhakar, Anupam [mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]<mailto:[mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:19 PM
To: Eduard Cerny (Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com<mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>)
Cc: Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM<mailto:Samik.Sengupta@synopsys.COM>; Kulshrestha, Manisha
Subject: FW: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Hi Ed,

I am looking at this proposal. I cannot find property_spec anywhere. Are you looking at property_statement ? If you cross out property_spec then you have to modify the BNF for assert statement also.
Cc'ing Samik/Manisha for more pair of eyes :)

Anupam

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]<mailto:[mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Prabhakar, Anupam; Eduard Cerny; Korchemny, Dmitry; John Havlicek
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Done.
ed

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Prabhakar, Anupam
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:16 PM
To: Eduard Cerny; Korchemny, Dmitry; John Havlicek
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Hi Ed,

I think Shalom mentioned this - with your changes we won't need both property_statement_spec and property_spec (they are now same).

A couple of minor comments
On page 3 'e' missing in -->property_xpr
On page 5 page should be 1134 --> AnnexA.2.10, page 133

Anupam

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:50 AM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; John Havlicek
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda.org>
Subject: [sv-ac] updated version of mantis 3525 proposal

Please review... If you find something to correct before tomorrow afternoon EDT I can still make the change. If later please let John know. Otherwise I can make changes on Friday next week.
I have also uploaded the proposal to Mantis.

Best regards
ed

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Received on Mon Jul 2 00:37:54 2012