[sv-ac] Re: Feedback requested for Mantis 1648 - reminder

Hi Mehdi:

We will move ahead with 1648 in SV-AC.

Note that you will continue to have the option to introduce a 
syntactic variation (modifier, e.g.) of the default disable in 
order to add covergroup semantics.

J.H.

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:02:01 -0700
> Thread-Topic: Feedback requested for Mantis 1648 - reminder
> Thread-Index: AcgVuIPrT+Vz4xN9RFyU3F8uFx5QhgArd2wg
> From: "Mehdi Mohtashemi" <Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <john.havlicek@freescale.com>, "Karen Pieper" <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2007 18:01:25.0423 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4AFD3F0:01C81667]
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
>  We briefly discussed mantis 1648 during sv-ec meeting on October
> 15,2007,
>  mantis 1648, introducing a default disable.
>  The consensus among attendees was such that there could be a
> possibility
>  of using such a default concept within the covergroup constructs,
> however,
>  given the current work load in sv-ec and a very short schedule, it was
> decided=20
>  that we will not be able to spend appropriate amount of time on this
> feature until
>  after the deadline, December 15th 2007.=20
> 
> Regards,
> - Mehdi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:05 PM
> To: Mehdi Mohtashemi; Charles Dawson; Matthew R
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Karen Pieper
> Subject: Re: Feedback requested for Mantis 1648 - reminder
> 
> Reminder,
> 
> Feedback is due by tomorrow for Mantis item 1648.
> 
> I know that there is some feedback from the sv-ec that will be send out.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil Korpusik wrote On 10/09/07 05:31 PM,:
> > Matt, Chas, Mehdi,
> >=20
> > The sv-ac has solicited input from the other committees on Mantis item
> 1648.
> > So far, no feedback has been sent back to the sv-ac. The Working Group
> 
> > discussed this at the meeting held on Oct 4th.
> >=20
> > We have decided to set a deadline for providing feedback. Please=20
> > discuss this in your next conference call and send input to the sv-ac
> by October 24th.
> > This will allow the sv-ac to continue making progress in this area.
> >=20
> > Neil
> >=20
> >=20
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [sv-ec] mantis 1648
> > Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:18:17 -0500
> > From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
> > Reply-To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
> > To: sv-bc@eda.org, sv-cc@eda.org, sv-ec@eda.org, sv-xc@eda.org
> > CC: sv-ac@eda-stds.org, karen.pieper@synopsys.com,=20
> > Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM, john.havlicek@freescale.com,=20
> > dmitry.korchemny@intel.com
> >=20
> > Hi Folks:
> >=20
> > SV-AC have passed a proposal for Mantis 1648 that introduces a default
> 
> > disable.  The document is
> >=20
> >    default_disable_1648.070904_dk.pdf
> >=20
> > and is also attached.
> >=20
> > A default disable may be declared as an item in a module, interface,=20
> > or program.  It applies to concurrent assertions within that module,=20
> > interface, or program that do not have their own "disable iff"
> specified.
> >=20
> > If a default disable is declared in a nested module, interface, or=20
> > program, then it overrides any default disable declared outside.
> >=20
> > This proposal only defines assertion semantics for default disable.
> >=20
> > There has been a negative comment from one of the Champions:
> >=20
> >    - I am against this enhancement at the current time. I believe this
> >      feature will be useful in a wider context, such as covergroups,
> but
> >      the committees have not had time to study this. If we add this
> >      feature now, it will be harder to address the other areas due to
> >      backward incompatibilities. For example, suppose the sv-ec
> decides
> >      that default disable should also disable sampling of covergroups.
> We
> >      can't add that capability later; we must look at all the other
> areas
> >      that could be affected. But due to schedules and merge
> activities,
> >      the other committees have not been able to investigate.
> >=20
> >=20
> > I am writing to encourage you to consider with high priority whether=20
> > you want to add semantics for default disable for other constructs,=20
> > such covergroups as suggested in this comment.
> >=20
> > I believe that it is important for assertions to get the default=20
> > disable in the 2008 standard, and we also have other SV-AC=20
> > enhancements that will be made more difficult to implement if the=20
> > default disable is not approved.  We are trying not to become stalled=20
> > on this item.
> >=20
> > I will sincerely appreciate prompt feedback that gives me a general=20
> > idea of what, if any semantics you want to add for default disable for
> 
> > non-assertion constructs and when it will be feasible for you to=20
> > create corresponding proposals.
> >=20
> > Best regards,
> >=20
> > John H.
> >=20
> >=20
> 
> 

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