RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks

Hi,

the reason I had some opposition to the difference in default behavior
is that this is the current one and perhaps we should not change  it. If
there is a strong opinion that it does not matter... be it.

ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:04 PM
> To: Miller Hillel-R53776; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks
> 
> Hillel,
> 
> I would also prefer if action blocks do not execute on vacuous success
> but Ed does not support that. That is why we decided to keep 
> it this way
> in the last meeting.
> 
> Manisha 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller Hillel-R53776 [mailto:r53776@freescale.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:48 PM
> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@eda.org
> Cc: Miller Hillel-R53776
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks
> 
> Ok. Does it not make sense to change this? That is, change 
> the default,
> not to activate action blocks for vacuous passing. 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Hillel Miller>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:41 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks
> 
> Hillel,
> 
> I did not understand your question ? Are you asking what is 
> the default
> behaviour of action blocks ? Basically all the action blocks work the
> way they work now if no assertion action control task is specified. 
> 
> Manisha 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Miller Hillel-R53776
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:46 PM
> To: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda.org
> Cc: Miller Hillel-R53776
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks
> 
> Manisha,
> What is the default action, for the different action controls?
> Thanks 
> 
> 
> Hillel Miller>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Bassam Tabbara
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:15 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal assertion action control tasks
> 
> Hi Manisha,
> 
> 2 comments:
> 
> 1) The on/off should NOT affect currently running (in-flight)
> assertions. Note that the asserton/off tasks do not, so we need to be
> consistent + it makes sense to be this way.
> 
> 2) Appropriate VPI control/callbacks will need to be added as well
> (clause 28 see the on/off tasks and corresponding VPI for reference)
> for:
> - scope control/callbacks (note: no levels in current API ... 
> applies to
> whole scope, no need to extend this... Too fine grain) [for 
> on/off this
> is the SysOn/Off callbacks/control]
> - assertion control/callbacks [for on/off this is the Enable/Disable
> callbacks/control]
> 
> Note the handle can be a "vpiCollection" so lists are covered in API.
> 
> Thx.
> -Bassam.
> 
> --
> Dr. Bassam Tabbara
> Synopsys, Inc.
> (650) 584-1973
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:25 AM
> 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
> 
>