RE: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal

 

 

________________________________

From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:45 AM
To: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal

 

Hi Lisa,

 

3 comments -- independent issues:

 

1)       Do we really need to create a backward incompatibility ? We can
leave cover property (sequence_expr) in and recommend not using or at
least *deprecate* instead of striking out. It's not an erratum we are
fixing, rather can be thought of as better/clearer syntax + enhancement
to add disable iff -- intended to help users not make things harder
short term.

 

[Lisa Piper >>>]  you can still do this since a sequence_expr is an
property_expr.  But it will provide the one match per attempt. 

 

2)       The wording of "cover property" being a "one match" is too
strong. There are cases (implication) when more than one match results,
in fact we rely on this (per previous discussion) to define the
semantics of "cover sequence".

 

[Lisa Piper >>>]  any suggestions?

 

3)       Do we need to file a separate proposal for semantics update
(the annex) ? Or are we adding to same ?

 

[Lisa Piper >>>] I don't think a separate proposal is good.  I will add
it to this. I assume you are talking about Annex A?  

 

Thx.

-Bassam.

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Lisa
Piper
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:18 AM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal

I have uploaded a new version of 1768 - cover sequence.  It is attached
for convenience. 

Lisa <<1768_cover_sequence_3.pdf>> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 


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