Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Initial proposal text for messages in sequences.
From: John Havlicek (john.havlicek@motorola.com)
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 08:34:39 PST
All:
We discussed the fact that this proposal effort grew out of
one of the original proposals since we could not find a workable
solution to the goal of the original proposal (get local variables
and sampled values out of a sequence into the action blocks).
Even though a concrete proposal for my suggestion could be written
quickly, I am worried that the committee does not have enough time
to review it in order to ballot it by Monday.
So it seems we will have to pick this back up in the next revision
of SVA.
Best regards,
John H.
> Reply-To: <dwsmith@Synopsys.COM>
> From: "David W. Smith" <David.Smith@Synopsys.COM>
> Cc: <sv-ac@eda.org>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:01:15 -0800
> Organization: Synopsys, Inc.
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> Importance: Normal
>
> Hi John and Adam,
> Just as a process clarification. All technical changes for 3.1a were
> supposed to be complete on Dec. 1. This was extended to next week so that
> each could complete their work. At that time all technical changes to the
> LRM are supposed to be complete and the final draft of technical changes
> will be done from whatever is complete by the last SV-AC meeting of that
> week. I believe that SV-BC and SV-EC will be wrapped up by Monday the 15th.
> Draft 2 is in process and draft 3, the final technical draft, will be based
> on the conclusion of all committee work next week.
>
> There will be no more technical changes accepted after next week. The next
> stage of the process is to complete editorial review (grammar, consistency,
> clarity) review and approve the LRM to be sent to the board by 24 January.
> This is the schedule that each committee has approved in their operating
> guidelines.
>
> The actual closing of new submissions was 15 September. The only items we
> should be working on now is finalizing the extensions and wrapping up
> errata.
>
> I thought this would be a useful review since it was not clear in the email
> exchange that the current deadlines for each committee were clearly
> understood. I hope this helps.
>
> Regards
> David S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of John
> Havlicek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:10 AM
> To: krolnik@lsil.com
> Cc: john.havlicek@motorola.com; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Initial proposal text for messages in sequences.
>
> Adam and All:
>
> I think it is achievable to put my suggestion into 3.1a.
> Do you have issues with it or is it unclear whether my
> suggestion is a good step to take right now?
>
> Briefly, my suggestion was to allow attaching the messages to
> booleans and sequences with the comma syntax and with the semantics
> that says the message executes only if the boolean or sequence
> matches (i.e., the "passing" mode).
>
> This way there will be some debugging capability in the 3.1a
> language.
>
> In the next revision, we would work on getting the failing mode
> defined and the syntax to represent it, as well as the single
> error messages for properties.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John H.
>
> > Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:46:22 -0600
> > From: Adam Krolnik<krolnik@lsil.com>
> > X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> > Cc: <sv-ac@eda.org>
> > Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> > Precedence: bulk
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi John;
> >
> > Thank you for the excellent critique of this attempt at providing the
> ability
> > to provide context of the failure back to the user.
> >
> > I suggest that this be one of the first issues that the committe works on
> for
> > the next SV revision.
> >
> > Adam Krolnik
> > Verification Mgr.
> > LSI Logic Corp.
> > Plano TX. 75074
> > Co-author "Assertion Based Design"
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 08:35:39 PST