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

Hi Bassam, Yaniv,

I deleted the redundant vpiIffOp, and kept the original one. I also
addressed Lisa's comments and I am going to send a separate mail about
it.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:52 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Fais Yaniv; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Lisa Piper
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: call to vote on 2250

Hi Dmitry,

If properties are using the same SV operator i.e. "iff" of events (and
they are in 1932 -- if this is not desired then need a new keyword
there...) then vpiIffOp is it. Note that for the and/or they were
different composition operators than &&/|| hence the new op type to
distinguish. 

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:21 AM
To: Fais Yaniv; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Lisa Piper
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: call to vote on 2250

Hi Yaniv, Bassam,

As far as I understand it, this should be iff operator in events, e.g.,
@(posedge clk iff en). Therefore we need another name for it. We can
adopt vpiCompIffOp and vpiCompImpliesOp (though there is no
vpiImpliesOp, but vpiImplyOp already exists and it may also be
confusing). Another option is to reuse vpiIffOp.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Fais Yaniv [mailto:yaniv.fais@freescale.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:11 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Lisa Piper
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: call to vote on 2250

 
Hi Dmitry,

This addresses my comments,

I think however that you can remove "vpiIffOp" from the new additions in
M.2 since there is already a code for that (number 68) - I imagine it is
for the "iff" operator used on events (like in "@(posedge clk iff
!gated)") but it is probably OK - sorry for that.


Thanks,
Yaniv


-----Original Message-----
From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 19:49
To: Lisa Piper; Havlicek John; sv-ac@eda.org; Fais Yaniv
Cc: Bustan, Doron; eduard.cerny@synopsys.com; Fais Yaniv;
Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com; johan.martensson@jasper-da.com;
Seligman, Erik; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; thomas.thatcher@sun.com
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: call to vote on 2250

Hi Lisa, Yaniv,

I am attaching a new version, but I haven't uploaded it into Mantis,
since I am not sure that I addressed all your comments there. If you
agree with my understanding, I will upload this version.

Please, see my notes below.

Thanks,
Dmitry


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Piper
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:32 PM
To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Cc: Bustan, Doron; eduard.cerny@synopsys.com; yaniv.fais@freescale.com;
Korchemny, Dmitry; Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com;
johan.martensson@jasper-da.com; Seligman, Erik;
bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; thomas.thatcher@sun.com
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: call to vote on 2250

I vote yes with the following friendly amendments:

1. Shouldn't "vpiImplies" and "vpiIff" be added to the list of
vpiOpTypes for a property?

[Korchemny, Dmitry] Added (see attachment).

2. Don't we need a "strong" and a "weak" operator for sequence
expressions?

[Korchemny, Dmitry] I assume that weak is the same as just a sequence
expression, and strong is a sequence expression with the qualifier
vpiOpStrong, since weak and strong do not characterize the sequence
expression, but the property.

3. For vpiNextOp, why are we giving a constant only if different than 1?
I know for arguments, the default value is returned when a specific
value is not provided. So perhaps we should return the default "1" when
none exists. This would also make it predictable that a constant will
always follow next.  (also, I think the terminology "returned" is better
than "given")

[Korchemny, Dmitry] I tried to be consistent with the sequence
expressions (see 36.47). It is written there:

"vpiUnaryCycleDelayOp: Arguments shall be: sequence, left range, right
range. Right range shall only be given if different from left range."

What does it exactly mean: is it an error to specify the right range if
it coincides with the left range, or just it is legal to omit the right
range in this case?

I didn't find in Clause 36 any case with explicitly specified default
value.

Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:29 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Cc: doron.bustan@intel.com; eduard.cerny@synopsys.com;
yaniv.fais@freescale.com; john.havlicek@freescale.com;
dmitry.korchemny@intel.com; Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com;
johan.martensson@jasper-da.com; Lisa Piper; erik.seligman@intel.com;
bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; thomas.thatcher@sun.com
Subject: call to vote on 2250

Hi Folks:

This is the call to vote on the proposal for Mantis 2250.

The document on Mantis is 

   2250_LTL_VPI_080127dk.pdf

Please vote if you are eligible.  See details below.

J.H.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Ballot on Mantis 2250

- Called on 2008-01-29, final ballots due by 2008-02-04 T 23:59-08:00.

 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan
(Intel)
 v[xxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
(Synopsys)     
 n[------------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani
(Synopsys)
 v[-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
(Freescale)
 t[xxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek
(Freescale - Chair)
v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny
(Intel - Co-Chair)
v[xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha
Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
n[-x-------------------------------------------------] Ah-Lam Lee
(Qualcomm)
 n[--------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long
(Mentor Graphics) n[-----------x------------x--xxx.....................]
Joseph Lu
(Altera)
 n[--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson
(Jasper)
 n[-----------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller
(Freescale)
 v[xxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper
(Cadence)
 v[xxxxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman
(Intel)
 n[---------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh
(Mentor Graphics) v[x-xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Bassam Tabbara
(Synopsys)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher
(Sun Microsystems)
   |--------------------------------------------------- attendance on
2008-01-29
 |----------------------------------------------------- voting
eligibility for this ballot
|------------------------------------------------------ e-mail votes
received

        Legend:
                x = attended
                - = missed
                r = represented
                . = not yet a member
                v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4 overall)
                n = not a valid voter
                t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie

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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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