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

Ok, sounds good.

THX. 
-Bassam

----- Original Message -----
From: Seligman, Erik <erik.seligman@intel.com>
To: Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; sv-ac@eda.org <sv-ac@eda.org>
Cc: Eduard Cerny <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM>; Korchemny, Dmitry <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>
Sent: Mon Dec 10 07:08:33 2007
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: New version of 2005 proposal (deferred assertions) posted

Hi Bassam-- actually, because we are now making deferred a type of immediate assertion, I believe we do need vpiIsDeferred.
This is because a deferred assertion may not necessarily have an associated event, if it's declared with 'assert #0'.  So we need a field to distinguish a #0 immediate assert from a standard one.

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bassam Tabbara
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:50 PM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Cc: Eduard Cerny; Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: [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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is 
believed to be clean. 

-- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.