But |=> is defined in terms of |->, at least for now... ed > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On > Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:01 AM > To: Korchemny, Dmitry > Cc: sv-ac@eda.org > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks > > Dmitry, > > 'vacuous success' is defined in 17.11.2: > > "If there is no match of the antecedent sequence_expr from a > given start > point, then evaluation of the implication from that start > point succeeds > vacuously and returns true." > > This definition is sort of buried inside and not easy to find. > > Note that it is defined only for |-> implication. > > 17.3.3 also says, "Vacuity rules are applied only when implication > operator is used." > > Shalom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On > > Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:46 AM > > To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@eda.org > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks > > > > Hi Manisha, > > > > Here are my comments: > > > > 1) To define the action of $asservacuouson/of for assertions we > > need > > first a clear definition of vacuous success of an assertion. > > > > 2) $assertdisabledon/off for assertions. Let's have the > > following > > property: > > > > assert property (disable iff(rst) a) action1 else action2; > > > > Suppose both rst and a are high and $assertdisableoff has been > > issued. > > Will action1 still take place? > > > > 3) cover statement. As I wrote in my previous mail, the > > definition of > > cover statement itself needs a refinement. In my proposal the > > notions of > > vacuous and disabled success for cover directives are > > irrelevant. > > > > 4) I definitely think that this is another errata item (if you > > are > > talking about #805) > > > > Thanks, > > Dmitry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On > > Behalf Of > > Kulshrestha, Manisha > > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:25 PM > > To: sv-ac@eda.org > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks > > > > Hi All, > > > > I am including a proposal for controlling action block > > execution. Please > > send your feedback. Do we need another errata on this issue or > > this > > proposal can be added to the errata on disable iff (which > > already has > > another proposal). > > > > Thanks. > > Manisha > >Received on Wed Feb 22 07:55:43 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 22 2006 - 07:56:34 PST