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

There has been discussion, and I agree with it, of adding an 1800-2008
version specifier in Clause 23 that cross references to Annex B for the
keyword list, even if no new keywords are added in 2008.  This will
eliminate redundancy, and allow new keywords to only be added in one place,
Annex B.  

Shalom, do know if there is a Mantis item on this, and if not, can you
create one?

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:13 AM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis and proposal for restrict 
> property verification statement
> 
> The 1800-2005 standard has a "1800-2005" version specifier and an
> accompanying Table 23-1.
> 
> -- Brad 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:edcerny@synopsys.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:25 AM
> To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 



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