RE: [sv-ac] #1381

Hello John,

welcome back to the discussions. I will reply in more detail (if still
needed) later.
Regarding immediate assserts - there is no notion of an attempt, it
executes in procedural code whenever the control reaches that point.

ed 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:59 AM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com; dbustan@freescale.com; 
> sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1381
> 
> Hi Ed and All:
> 
> I have been trying to follow the discussions, but not keeping
> up too well.
> 
> I would like to see a coherent alternative inductive definition
> for which the changes you are talking about for "or" and "not"
> are incorporated.
> 
> What is wrong with having a tool switch to control how much 
> effort the simulator puts in looking for non-vacuity?  If we 
> use the tool performance as an excuse to break the definition,
> then I'm afraid we will end up with a useless concept 
> 
> Regarding the attempts, I'm not sure we have done the right 
> thing so far.
> 
> How does attempt counting work for immediate assertions?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> John H.
> 
> 
> > X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set 
> sender to owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:00:38 -0700
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] #1381
> > Thread-Index: AcZ0+HWrfPq94WVFRB+ELcrxclutewAN3PHgAAMvt2A=
> > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2006 21:00:40.0182 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[F5AC9160:01C6753D]
> > X-Virus-Status: Clean
> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by 
> server.eda.org id k4BL0cNj011904
> > Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> > 
> > Hello Doron et al,
> > 
> > A few comments regarding Manisha's comments:
> > 
> > 1. I think that the document defines only non-vacuous success by the
> > sentence on pp2 just above Section 177.13.4, even though it defines
> > non-vacuous attempt too, without qualifying what kind of 
> outcome of the
> > attempt takes place. I think this is useful. However, I agree with
> > Manisha that the definition of the not operator is curious, 
>  because to
> > succeed, property_expr must have non-vacuous attempt and not
> > property_expr must succeed. But that can happen only when 
> property_expr
> > fails.  Consequently, the failure must have been non-vacuous. How is
> > that defined?
> > 
> > 2. I'd agree, because the user must realize that there is a 
> choice in
> > the property such that it can succeed if one of them has a vacuous
> > success. Going beyond that can be unnecessarily costly.
> > 
> > 3. Not sure if it is clear what I meant - the condition is extracted
> > from the procedural block, a syntactic extraction, into a concurrent
> > property. hence vacuity etc. should apply the same way as 
> if the user
> > wrote the property outside the always block and copied the condition
> > there manually.
> > 
> > I think that this also provides basis for extracting condition from,
> > say, combinational always blocks for assertions embedded 
> there, provided
> > that the clock is explicitly specified in the assertion 
> (which is what I
> > said earlier in agreement with Dmitry.)
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > ed
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> > > Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:39 PM
> > > To: Doron Bustan; sv-ac@eda.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] #1381
> > > 
> > > Hi Doron,
> > > 
> > > Few comments/questions on the proposal:
> > >  
> > > 1. So far LRM only had a concept of vacuous success but no vacuous
> > > failures. But in this proposal vacuous is not associated with 
> > > success or
> > > failures. Does that mean that we now have vacuous success 
> and vacuous
> > > failure ? If vacuous attempt is neither a success or failure, then
> > > should the action block be executed ? This question is 
> more related to
> > > item (b) where you are defining not operator.
> > > 
> > > 2. Regarding (c) p1 or p2, I have a problem with this. 
> The simulator
> > > should not be forced to keep the evaluation attempt of a 
> operand alive
> > > if the other operand has been determined to HOLD.
> > > Say an attempt started at t then suppose at t+1 simulator 
> > > determies that
> > > p1 holds vacously. Also assume that at t+10 simulator 
> > > determies that P2
> > > holds non-vacuously. So, eventhough the simulator has 
> > > determined at time
> > > t+1 that the property 'p1 or p2' HOLDS at time t, its been 
> > > asked to keep
> > > the evaluation of p2 alive to determine if 'p1 or p2' HOLDS 
> > > vacuosly or
> > > non-vacuously.
> > > 
> > > 3. Page3 section 17.3.5, I agree with Ed and Bassam that 
> evaluation
> > > attempt should not be dependent on the enabling condition.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > Manisha
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>