RE: [sv-ac] item 1361

Hi Manisha,

If there is a real reason for this break with the other tasks
(asserton/off) please share. Otherwise, I think we should be true to the
concurrency model... meaning if for the on/off tasks we did not treat as
a "disable fork" affecting the in-flight assertions which is valid in SV
and the way assertions are described, then certainly these "setting"
calls should have *no* effect after the spawn (note that events are not
an operand of assertions so hard for me to validate this operation ...).


So this really can't be "independent of when a thread was spawned" that
would not be correct modeling ... May be I am a purist but I'd rather we
not let the passon/off turn into a tooling facility rather than an SV
modeling one even if this makes it hard on implementation (keeping the
different contexts...), certainly not in the language itself, I'd be
more accommodating in VPI -- a tool interface.

** Also, we do need to extend the VPI for these controls, we can decide
to spawn another ID for SV-CC to handle, but both items must go into LRM
together. 

Thx.
-Bassam.

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Synopsys, Inc.
(650) 584-1973

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Cerny 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:51 PM
To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] item 1361

Looks good...
ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
> Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 6:37 PM
> To: Bassam Tabbara
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] item 1361
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Here are the main changes I have made in this version (compared to 
> last
> one):
> 
> 1. The pass statement of cover directives will be controllable by 
> these tasks.
> 2. I have an extra statement at the end to show that action blocks 
> execute by default until any of these tasks is executed. (These system

> tasks shall not affect the execution of  pass or fail actions until 
> the task is executed. ) 3. Added reference for the definition of 
> vacuous success.
> 4. Added more explicit statement about which scopes can be specified 
> in the argument of these tasks.
> 
> I think I have incorporated all the feedback so far except Bassam's 
> feedback that they should not apply to currently executing assertions.

> I would like them to apply to currently executing assertions so that 
> it is independent of when a thread started evaluating.
> 
> Thanks.
> Manisha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:23 PM
> To: Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] item 1361
> 
> Hi Manisha,
> 
> Is it possible to list the changes from last rev -- what I'm looking 
> for is if/how new rev addresses previous feedback. May be to begin 
> with a list of the earlier feedback is worthwhile.
> 
> 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: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] item 1361
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have updated the proposal in mantis. Please review it and provide 
> your feedback.
> 
> Thanks.
> Manisha
> 
> 
> 
>