RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on Mantis 1932 -- 2250

Hi Dmitry,

Actually "range" was always there -- see 36.50 which has range, you can
also see "infinite" i.e. "$" is a "vpiUnboundedConst" (note 4). Your
clarification notes are helpful indeed here, some edits follow -- I show
final suggested form. 

** Some fixup to notes (see above)
"- vpiNextOp: Arguments shall be: property, constant. constant shall
only be given if different
from 1.
- vpiAlwaysOp and vpiEventuallyOp: Arguments shall be: property, left
range, right range.

3) vpiOpStrong is valid only for operations vpiNextOp, vpiAlwaysOp,
vpiEventuallyOp, vpiUntilOp,
vpiUntilWithOp and for sequence expression. vpiOpStrong shall return
TRUE to indicate the strong version of the corresponding operator."

** Another edit is "operation" should NOT be bold (seems to be in pdf in
before/after diagrams albeit it's a font issue in pdf (not in blue) ...)

** Another needed edit to ADD to 36.50 is: Add "property inst" at bottom
of RHS under "sequence inst". This is a bug it should've always been
there, I just noticed it.

** Another suggested edit is to remove "#=#" notation from comment in
case we come up with better notation in 1932, decouple the two:
#define vpiNonOverlapFollowedByOp editor to fill /* overlapped
followed_by operator */

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:14 AM
To: Bustan, Doron; Fais Yaniv; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM
Cc: Havlicek John; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on Mantis 1932

Hi Bassam, Doron,

I uploaded a more elaborated version of 2250 (2250_LTL_VPI_080127dk.pdf,
also attached here). I also made the following changes:

* I kept only one version of each temporal operator, and added a boolean
property vpiOpStrong indicating the strength of the temporal operator.
* I removed operators vpiStrongOp, and vpiWeakOp, since vpiOpStrong is
sufficient to express the sequence strength.

What do you think about it?

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bustan, Doron
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:16 PM
To: Fais Yaniv; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com
Cc: Havlicek John; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on Mantis 1932

All,

I got some feedback from Yaniv that consider vpi diagrams.
I do not feel comfortable with vpi and need some help. Due to the tight
time schedule I would like to move the vpi part of 1932 to a new mantis
item 2250.

Bassam, could you help me with the issues Yaniv rise? I am not sure what
to do.

If people will not object to the separation of vpi from 1932, we can
voice vote on it in the next meeting.

Thanks

Doron 

>>
>> I vote yes on 1932 with the following friendly amendments:
>>
>>1. add to "36.45 Property specification" and "M.2 Source code" vpi
codes
>>for weak,iff,implies
>>
>>4. This enhancement adds additional operand types to property
>>expression,e.g: the cycle_delay_const_range_expression in
>>
>>always [cycle_delay_const_range_expression] property_expr , currently 
>>only property-expression or sequence-expression operands exist in 
>>property-expression, are those additional operand types accessible
from
>>the VPI ? (I'm sorry but I don't know enough about VPI to answer
>>this...)
>>
>>
>>
>>Yaniv

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



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