RE: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966

I have to admit that I did not see 1350 - this is the problem when the
same issue is in two separate items and 2 different committees.  

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:54 AM
> To: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@eda.org
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> 
> And then presumably all the other issues in Mantis 1350 
> raised by Surya,
> Franscoise, and myself would be dealt with separately.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:51 PM
> > To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-ac@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > 
> > Hello Matt and AC members,
> > 
> > SV-AC is meeting on 3/14, so we'll have to carry the discussion
> > about
> > $isunbounded by email.
> > 
> > As I mentioned, there was some disconnect when the function was
> > defined.
> > I think that it may be sufficient to only provide a
> > clarification in the
> > LRM, but not change the name of the $isunbounded function.
> > For example, something along the following lines:
> > - A range can be specified with a low and high bound enclosed
> > by square
> > braces [ ] and separated by a colon ( : ), as in
> > [low_bound:high_bound].
> > A bound specified by $ shall represent the lowest or highest
> > value for
> > the type of the expression on the left-hand side.
> > - $ can also be used to indicate that the upper bound is open
> > when used
> > in ## and * operators in assertions.
> > - $ can be specified as the value of an integer parameter.
> > - The function $isunbounded can be used to test whether an
> > integer
> > parameter has the value $. It returns a bit value of 1 if the
> > parameter
> > has the value $.
> > - $isunbounded would be used as a condition in a generate
> > statement.
> > 
> > ed
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Maidment, Matthew R
> > [mailto:matthew.r.maidment@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:21 AM
> > > To: Eduard Cerny
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > >
> > > The SV-BC will have a meeting on march 13th.  I'd like to
> > close on it
> > > during that meeting.  In order to do so, I'd appreciate some
> > > feedback on Shalom's input so we can continue to educate
> > ourselves
> > > off-line before trying to reach a conclusion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
> > > >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 11:14 PM
> > > >To: Maidment, Matthew R; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> > > >Subject: Re: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > > >
> > > >Hi Mat, yes I saw the message. I have forwarded the issue to
> > > >sv bc, asking to provide their view. The function was
> > > >initially created for assertions and then generalized by
> > > >another committee for ranges. It does seem that the name is
> > > >then also inapproriate, but backward compatibility could be
> > an
> > > >problem if we change. Perhaps only clarification is needed.
> > > >What do you suggest on behalf of sv bc?
> > > >
> > > >Rgrds, Ed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Maidment, Matthew R <matthew.r.maidment@intel.com>
> > > >To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM>
> > > >Sent: Sun Mar 05 16:19:53 2006
> > > >Subject: FW: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > > >
> > > >Hi Ed.  Did you & the SV-AC get this message?  Can someone
> > comment?
> > > >
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of
> > > >>Bresticker, Shalom
> > > >>Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:26 PM
> > > >>To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org
> > > >>Subject: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: Bresticker, Shalom
> > > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:28 PM
> > > >>To: 'Eduard Cerny'; sv-ac@eda.org
> > > >>Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > > >>
> > > >>Ed,
> > > >>
> > > >>I have a couple of issues with $unbounded.
> > > >>This is part of Mantis 1350.
> > > >>
> > > >>6.3.2.1 says,
> > > >>
> > > >>"The value $ can be assigned to parameters of integer
> > types. A
> > > >>parameter to which $ is assigned shall only be used
> > > wherever $ can be
> > > >>specified as a literal constant."
> > > >>
> > > >>and
> > > >>
> > > >>"To support whether a constant is $, a system function is
> > > provided to
> > > >>test whether a constant is a $. The syntax of the system
> > > function is
> > > >>$isunbounded(const_expression); $isunbounded returns true
> > if
> > > >>const_expression is unbounded.
> > > >>Typically, $isunbounded would be used as a condition in the
> > > generate
> > > >>statement."
> > > >>
> > > >>What bothers me is that $ can be used for other things as
> > well as
> > > >>unbounded range specification.
> > > >>
> > > >>For example, 8.19 (Set membership) says,
> > > >>
> > > >>"A range can be specified with a low and high bound
> > enclosed
> > > >by square
> > > >>braces [ ] and separated by a colon ( : ), as in
> > > >>[low_bound:high_bound].
> > > >>A bound specified by $ shall represent the lowest or
> > highest
> > > >value for
> > > >>the type of the expression on the left-hand side."
> > > >>
> > > >>So:
> > > >>
> > > >>Can I use a parameter set to $ in a range with 'inside'
> > operator?
> > > >>
> > > >>Presumably, the parameter itself has no idea whether it is
> > > >going to be
> > > >>used in an assertion time range or in a set membership
> > expression.
> > > >>Presumably, also, the $isunbounded function has no idea how
> > the
> > > >>const_expression argument is going to be used.
> > > >>
> > > >>Does this mean that the name '$isunbounded' is misleading
> > and
> > > >>represents only one possible meaning of $ ?
> > > >>
> > > >>Shalom
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > >>> Eduard Cerny
> > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:48 PM
> > > >>> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> > > >>> Subject: [sv-ac] Porposal for errata 966
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi, I have added in Mantis a proposal for errata 996 and
> > > a bug note.
> > > >>> Also see attached file.
> > > >>> ed
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Reminder:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> SV-AC meeting today at 9am PT, 12pm ET:
> > > >>> Dial in:
> > > >>>         Domestic: 888-635-9997
> > > >>>         International: 763-315-6815
> > > >>>         Participant: 2638198
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
>