RE: [sv-ac] #1381

Ok thx Doron. Indeed had an error in my earlier email, the statement
*is* consistent with the semantics section of proposal I misread my
note.

** One more suggestion: Add a sentence that shows the final form of the
inferred assertion in SVA constructs to make this clear.

** My opinion: I think we are dropping a valuable piece of information
-- namely the disabled (don't care if it's marked a success or fail
really). In my mind, why am I inferring the condition if I don't want to
"report" it somehow. If I am ignoring it then let's not infer it into
assertion to begin with ...

---> Recap: this proposal should be tied to #805 (and any other new
coverage issue/proposal) -- they have to be consistent. Today's #805 and
this proposal do not mesh.

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doron Bustan [mailto:dbustan@freescale.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:34 AM
To: Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1381

Bassam Tabbara wrote:

>I vote yes.
>checking my notes I find couple of comments:
>
>- typo extra "the" on page 2 (c). 
>
>- page 3 last sentence before 17.13.5. "... a new evaluation attempt of
the underlying property_spec begins ..."
>

I fixed the first two items, I will upload it later today.

>
>- page 3 section 17.13.5 added sentence "A concurrent assertion ..."
makes it seem that an attempt only starts (at every clock event) when
the enabling condition holds, sentence needs rewording (the semantics
are ok).
>
>
>  
>
I don't think that there should be an attempt if the condition does not
hold, I know that it does not fit the implication attempt semantics, but
we will have to change that for coverage anyway.

Doron