RE: [sv-ac] vote for 1757

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:38 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] vote for 1757

 

I would like to add the following as another friendly amendment:

 

In 1648 it is changing this part. I think there should be mention of
reset conditions in this part of the LRM. The first statement "In the
sequences used to build properties" does not seem to cover these.

 

There are two places where Boolean boolean expressions occur in
concurrent properties assertions:

- In the sequences used to build properties

- In the disable condition inferred for an assertion, specified either
in a top-level disable iff

clause (see 16.12) or in a default disable declaration (see 16.15)

[Lisa Piper >>>] but the "disable condition", as 1757 is currently
written, is used for the reset condition, not the disable iff.  The
accept_on and reject_on would be in the "reset condition".  That is why
I voted no - it is too confusing!

 

 

Thanks.

Manisha

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:28 AM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] vote for 1757

 

Hi,

 

I vote yes on 1757 with the following friendly amendment.

 

1.       In the statement "If during the evaluation the disable
condition becomes true, then the overall evaluation of the property
results in true." There should be a comma after "If during the
evaluation".

 

Thanks.

Manisha


-- 
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 <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.