RE: [sv-ac] New version of 1995 (concurrent asserts in loops) ready for review

From: Seligman, Erik <erik.seligman_at_.....>
Date: Wed Nov 28 2007 - 08:37:57 PST
       
[SB] 7. I don't think the rewrite would be equivalent if the original
code would change foo or bar during the execution of the loops or if
something else could change them.
       
[ES]        Actually, I think it would be-- if I understand right, as we
have assertions in procedural 'if' statements defined now, the assertion
would just use the sampled values of foo and bar anyway.  So
intermediate values during the procedural code would not actually affect
it. 
[SB] I looked at this a little, I felt it may not be dealt with
adequately by the rest of the text. It needs more looking at.


By 'rest of the text', do you mean the texxt of this proposal, or the
current LRM text about conditional inferences for concurrent assertions?
(I do think the LRM could use a few more examples to illustrate sampled
value issues with those conditional rewrites, but that is somewhat
beyond the domain of the current proposal.  Though maybe since we're
editing the same section we could shoehorn this fix in as well?.)       


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Nov 28 08:39:54 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 08:40:05 PST