[sv-ac] RE: AC 269 --uploaded again

Deleted.
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:bassam@novas.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:16 PM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: AC 269 --uploaded again
>
> Hi All,
>
> To use Ed's words: As discussed I also added a sentence about
> using sampled value functions in disable iff expressions in 269.
>
> Ed please delete the older one: SV_LRM_269.pdf (11,253
> bytes) 11-17-04
> 15:44
>
> Thx.
> -Bassam.
>
> --
> Dr. Bassam Tabbara
> Architect, R&D
> Novas Software, Inc.
> (408) 467-7893
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:42 AM
> To: bassam@novas.com; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: AC 269 --uploaded
>
> I have deleted it,
> ed
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:bassam@novas.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:49 PM
> > To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: AC 269 --uploaded
> >
> > Hi Ed, John, and all,
> >
> > I uploaded a new version of 269, with the wording suggested by Ed
> > below (consistent with 196). I've removed the transgression
> into clock
> > flow and any overloading of an expanded role of disable iff. The
> > proposal just clarifies the function, and removes the confusing
> > "asynchronous" wording.
> >
> > Ed/Surrendra/someone can I ask you to delete the old proposal:
> > SV_LRM_269.pdf (12,817 bytes) 10-25-04 17:24 ? Long story but
> > basically I can't do that myself.
> >
> > Thx.
> > -Bassam.
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Bassam Tabbara
> > Architect, R&D
> > Novas Software, Inc.
> > (408) 467-7893
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:01 PM
> > To: sv-ac@eda.org; Bassam Tabbara
> > Cc: Ed Cerny
> > Subject: AC 269
> >
> > Hello Bassam,
> >
> > In view of AC-195, may I suggest that your proposal for AC
> > 269 be modified by adding further detail on expressions just before
> > the sentence starting "Nesting of disable iff ... " as
> shown below? (I
> > also added "clause" in the 1st sentence.) We should discuss
> the errata
> > tomorrow. The change would also resolve 195. We still need
> an errata
> > to change the definition of boolean expressions in Section
> 17.1 which
> > I will introduce shortly.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > ed
> >
> > ---
> >
> > "The expression of the disable iff clause is called the reset
> > expression.
> > The disable iff clause allows pre-emptive resets to be
> specified. For
> > an evaluation of the property_spec, there is an evaluation of the
> > underlying property_expr. If prior to the completion of that
> > evaluation the reset expression becomes true, then the overall
> > evaluation of the property_spec is true. Otherwise, the
> evaluation of
> > the property_spec is the same as that of the property_expr.
> The reset
> > expression is tested independently for different evaluation
> attempts
> > of the property_spec.
> >
> > The values of variables used in the reset expression are
> those in the
> > current simulation cycle, i.e., not sampled. The expression may
> > contain a reference to an endpoint of a sequence by using
> the method
> > triggered of that sequence.
> > Matched and ended of a sequence and local variables cannot
> be used in
> > the reset expression.
> >
> > Nesting of disable iff clauses, explicitly or through property
> > instantiations, is not allowed."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 18 12:23:28 2004