[sv-ac] Re: Minor updates to 2110 based on Champion feedback

Hi Erik:

I have uploaded the files (.doc and .pdf) to Mantis.

J.H.

> X-ExtLoop1: 1
> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,403,1199692800"; 
>    d="doc'32?scan'32,32,208?pdf'32,32,208";a="383375544"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:02:21 -0800
> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: Minor updates to 2110 based on Champion feedback
> thread-index: Ach2X1VAf0bIgDFjRSe1F6iDPenvaQBkgRtg
> From: "Seligman, Erik" <erik.seligman@intel.com>
> Cc: <sv-ac@eda.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2008 21:02:22.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[B77E23A0:01C877F1]
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C877F1.B732E62C
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Former-Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> 
> Hi all-- 
> I have attached a version that fixes the issues John mentions below.
> The changes are pretty simple:  I eliminated the covergroup example,
> which was optional anyway, to remove the 2088 dependency, fixed the
> quotes, and added a variable declaration & clarification to the example
> mentioned.   I think we should be able to voice-vote this tomorrow.  The
> change-tracked doc is attached.
> 
> BTW-- I don't have permission to add these docs to the ticket in its
> current state; John/Shalom/Dmitry, can you do this for me?  Thanks. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> 7.  2110    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___ 
> 	    SV-AC  Allow checkers in procedural for loops
> 
>     Rationale for negative vote:  I think that 2088 is changing in
> response
>     to comments from SV-EC in a way that will not be consistent with the
> 
>     conditional changes on pp. 4-5.  In particular, I am concerned about
> whether
>     a covergroup declaration will be allowed in a checker.
> 
>     Friendly amendments:
>     - Smart quotes should not be used in the courier examples.
>     - In the example beginning at the bottom of p. 2, the sampled value
> of ok is
>       1'b1 in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk due
> to the
>       initialization assignment.  It is true, although perhaps
> misleading, to
>       say that the sampled value is always equal to (my_bits[3] == 0).
> This
>       assumes, of course, that no other code updates my_bits.  The
> declaration
>       of control_variable_copy is not shown, and we do not know what its
> sampled
>       value is in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk.
> 
> 

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