RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property verification statement

Isn't `begin_keywords meant for older versions only? I.e., 1800-2008 is
the default and follows Table B1 automatically? That is, there should be
no special other table for 2008 than B1?

ed 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict 
> property verification statement
> 
> If a new keyword is added, then someone will need to add a 
> new table for
> a new `begin_keywords version specifier "1800-2008" to reflect the
> modified Annex B, just as, for example, a new table for the 
> "1364-2005"
> version specifier took into account the new 'uwire' keyword. 
> 
> The proposal should at least mention that, even if it doesn't 
> fix it.  
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:06 AM
> To: Brad Pierce; Bassam Tabbara; Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property
> verification statement
> 
> Hello Brad,
> 
> I am not quite sure what to add there. The only change I 
> could see is a
> change in Table 21-14, however, it refers to keywords in 
> 1800-2005. The
> restrict keyword will go in the next release. I thought that this will
> be 1800-2008. In Other words, should appear in Table B1 only 
> and this is
> in the proposal. Please advise.
> 
> Thanks,
> ed
>   
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brad Pierce [mailto:bpierce@synopsys.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:58 PM
> > To: Bassam Tabbara; Eduard Cerny
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property 
> > verification statement
> > 
> > And 21.13 about `begin_keywords directive.
> > 
> > -- Brad
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:bassamt@synopsys.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:41 AM
> > To: Eduard Cerny; Brad Pierce
> > Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property 
> > verification statement
> > 
> > Hi Ed,
> > 
> > We also need to update (see "assume" and add similar entry): 36.42, 
> > 36.43, 38.3.2, A.2.10.
> > 
> > Thx.
> > -Bassam.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Eduard Cerny
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:32 AM
> > To: Brad Pierce
> > Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property 
> > verification statement
> > 
> > Thanks. I added a note to add restrict to table B1 and 
> corrected the 
> > other two items. Uploaded.
> > 
> > ed
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > > Brad Pierce
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:16 PM
> > > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property 
> > > verification statement
> > > 
> > > Please see, regarding new keywords,
> > > 
> > >     http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ac/hm/3900.html
> > > 
> > > Also, in the change for Annex A.2.10 --
> > > 
> > >     1)  "expect_property_statement" shouldn't be added to 
> > >                                "concurrent_assertion_statement".
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     2)  The second "assume_property_statement" should be
> > >                                "restrict_property_statement".
> > > 
> > > -- Brad
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > > Eduard Cerny
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:48 AM
> > > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict property 
> > > verification statement
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I have created a new mantis item #1806 and deposited a
> > proposal. (also
> > > attached)
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > ed
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 

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