RE: [sv-ac] few new errata

Hi All,
 
Thanks for these Manisha, my thoughts below as I checked mantis.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 


________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On
Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:16 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] few new errata


Hi,
 
I have filed new errata in mantis:
 
1532: conflict in syntax of sequence events
[Bassam Tabbara] Move to EC. 
1513: LRM does not clarify if class variables can be used in clock
expressions 
[Bassam Tabbara] EC-issue. Please add LRM reference section/text here.
Conceptually, see email discussion (of 1533), I think the issue is not
so much whether something is dynamic or not (of course it has to "exist"
for it to have a value...), but rather how to evaluate the "expression"
in question.
1510: inconsistency in action block syntax in the LRM 
[Bassam Tabbara] follow Annex A.6.3, like the conditional_statement (if
..), more general.
1533: LRM not clear about types of local variables in properties and
sequences 
[Bassam Tabbara] See email discussion. I think a statement that lvars
are of same allowed types in assertion expressions can be added. This
issue should be separate of class/other types allowing discussion. 
 
Thanks.
Manisha