RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1641

Hi Shalom,

My comments are included. I have some questions on your comments.

Thanks.
Manisha

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:15 PM
To: Kulshrestha, Manisha
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1641

I don't have a vote, but I have some comments:

> I have uploaded a new version of the proposal based on the 
> friendly amendments suggested so far (also attached here).


1. The relationship between the user-defined message and the
tool-specific message is a little unclear. Presumably the intention is
for the tool-specific to include the user-defined message or print the
user-defined message as an additional message. However, one might
interpret this as saying that the user-defined message, if provided,
overrides the tool-specific message. I think this should be clearer.

MK> I think the current intention is that the tool will print
information in addition to the user specified message. If there is no
user specified message then the tool can generate a message. Will it be
sufficient to say that tool specific message shall include user
specified message if there is any ? So, at the end of 19.9 it would say
"The tool-specific message shall include user-defined message if
specified".

2. Syntax 19-9 includes "message_argument ::= string | expression". But
'string' is a BNF keyword, see the definition of "data_type". What is
the intent, a string literal? Doesn't 'expression' actually cover that?
Note that the somewhat informal syntax of $display just says
'list_of_arguments'. Do you need to be different from $display?

MK> I would change it to list_of_arguments.

3. 16.3 includes the following text:

"The execution of pass and fail statements can be controlled by using
assertion action control tasks. The assertion action control tasks are
described in 19.11.

The optional statement label (identifier and colon) creates a named
block around the assertion statement (or any other SystemVerilog
statement) and can be displayed using the %m format specification.

assert_foo : assert(foo) $display("%m passed"); else $display("%m
failed");

The assertion control system tasks are described in 19.10.

Because the assertion is a statement that something must be true, the
failure of an assertion shall have a severity associated with it."

So the text is talking about action blocks and the severity tasks you
can call from them. In the middle of this, I find the statement "The
assertion control system tasks are described in 19.10," out of place and
puzzling.

MK> I suggest we remove this line from its current location and add the
following statement at the end of description of immediate assertions
(in the second paragraph of 16.3). It will look something like this:
"The immediate assert statement is a statement_item and can be specified
anywhere a procedural statement is specified. The execution of immediate
assertions can be controlled by using assertion control system tasks
(see 19.10)."


Thanks,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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