RE: [sv-ac] Review of Mantis 1549

Thanks for the feedback!  Answers below...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Thatcher
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:19 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Review of Mantis 1549

 

Hello Everyone,

 

I have reviewed the proposal for Mantis 1549.  The proposal in general
looks

good.  I have the following questions:

 

1.  On page 4, the text reads, "For example, two equivalent ways of
passing

    delay and repetition arguments are shown below:"

    However, there is only one example that follows.  I have been
looking at

    the one example trying to see if there are two different ways of
passing

    arguments in the one example.  I don't see what is equivalent.

[Lisa Piper >>>] yes - I wonder what I meant.  I have simply removed
that sentence. There probably existed two at one time.

2.  On page 4, the text reads, "Parentheses are implicit for passing
complex

    expressions as arguments"

    This is not clear to me.  Does this mean the parentheses are
required?

    Or, are they not required?

[Lisa Piper >>>] no parenthesis are not required by the user.  If you
instantiate that argument into the actual property or sequence
expression, you interpret the result as if there were parenthesis around
it.  This is necessary for example, to keep the clock from flowing out
of that expression. But the parenthesis are implicit, meaning that the
tool knows to assume this without the user having to explicitly provide
parenthesis.

 

3.  There are some minor text coloring issues.   For example there is a
line

    on p. 4 "cover property ( @(posedge clk) x ##1 y));" which is
colored

    black.  I don't think this was part of the original text.

    The same thing occurs at the top of page 5.

 

4.  In 17.11.1, I believe there is some missing strikeout text, but the
final

    text shown looks fine.

[Lisa Piper >>>] Regarding 3 & 4, the changes that are relative to
changes in other proposals that have been approved but are not reflected
in draft 3 yet. 

 

5.          The proposal probably needs the section numbers updated to
match Draft 3.

 

[Lisa Piper >>>] no - the current one on Mantis already has this. It
references chapter 16 now. Perhaps you were looking at draft 9 word doc?


 

Tom

-- 

------------------

Thomas J. Thatcher

Sun Microsystems

408-616-5589

------------------

 

-- 

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.