[sv-ac] RE: New version of 2005 proposal (deferred assertions) posted

Hi Erik,
 
Your suggested change is quite favorable to me. However the proposal
text needs to be crispier I believe to introduce "deferred" as a kind of
"immediate assertion" -- it seems to do that in some places while in
others it motivates/introduces as a separate type. 
 
If it is a type it needs its own VPI type, if it is just an immediate
then it does not. BTW, as I discussed with you before, we do not need
"vpiIsDeferred" -- the presence of clocking event or not can distinguish
whether an immediate has an event (aka deferred) vs. not. We do same for
prop/seq.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

________________________________

From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:44 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Cc: Eduard Cerny; Korchemny, Dmitry; Bassam Tabbara
Subject: New version of 2005 proposal (deferred assertions) posted


This version attempts to account for 1729 (immediate assume/cover), and
adds VPI stuff.
Ed-- can you double-check that the immediate assume/cover comments make
sense?
Bassam-- can you review the VPI edits?  I tried to simplify from my
earlier proposal by viewing deferred assertions as a type of immediate
assertion, so we create a vpiIsDeferred attribute rather than forking
off a duplicate set of diagrams.
 
Thanks!
 
 
Erik Seligman

Formal Verification Architect

Corporate Design Solutions
Design Technology and Solutions

Intel Corporation

M.S. JF4-402                   
2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Phone:   (503) 712-3134

 

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