RE: [sv-ac] 2005 wording: made change, should be ready for voice vote tomorrow

Hi all--  I have updated the doc on Mantis, with the minor changes from
Shalom's email.

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:25 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Cc: Alsop, Thomas R
Subject: [sv-ac] 2005 wording



Hi, 

Mantis 2005 says, 

16.4.2 Deferred assertion flush points 
A procedure is defined to have reached a deferred assertion flush point
if any of the following occur: 
-- The procedure, having been suspended earlier due to reaching an event
control or wait statement, resumes execution. 
-- The procedure was declared by an always_comb or always_latch
statement, and its execution is resumed due to a transition on one of
its dependent signals.

-- The outermost scope of the procedure is disabled by a disable
statement (see 16.4.4) 

I think 'procedure' here should be 'process', as in the second paragraph
of 16.4.1. 

'always_comb' and 'always_latch' are 'procedures', not 'statements'. 

Similarly, in 16.4.3, 
"In such cases, it is treated as if it were contained in an always_comb
block." 

Again, 'always_comb' is a 'procedure', not a 'block'. 

Thanks, 
Shalom 

Shalom Bresticker 
Intel Jerusalem LAD DA 
+972 2 589-6582 
+972 54 721-1033 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

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