SV-AC, I am still waiting for the editing instructions regarding the duplicate example described below. Please let me know ASAP what action to take, or if I should just close this Mantis item and leave the duplicate example in the LRM. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:28 AM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: Lisa Piper; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Is it? The only difference I could spot was the typesetting of iff in "is a proper subexpression of posedge clock iff reset == 0." Because of it the layout is slightly different. Dmitry From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:23 PM To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: 'Lisa Piper'; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 The example appears twice, but the explanations after the examples are different. Should one of the duplicate examples and its explanation be deleted or changed? Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:58 AM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: Lisa Piper; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 In the subclause 16.15.5 Embedding concurrent assertions in procedural code, the text starting with "Another, more complex example that is legal is as follows:", and ending with always @(posedge mclk) begin #10 q <= d1; // delay prevents clock inference @(negedge mclk) // event control prevents clock inference #10 q1 <= !d1; r5_p: assert property (r5); // no inferred clock end has been inserted twice. Dmitry From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 12:48 PM To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: 'Lisa Piper'; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Thanks for the clarification. Now I know what needs to be corrected for item 1 of bug note 7090. What needs to be corrected to fix the duplicate text and example indicated in item 2 of that bug note? Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:12 AM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: Lisa Piper; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Hi Stu, This is only the matter of coloring: "sampled" should be deleted, while "value" remains unchanged. Regards, Dmitry From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:07 AM To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: 'Lisa Piper'; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Dmitry, Thanks, but I still cannot make sense out of what editing changes are required. As far as I can tell, the "While it should be" text you have provided is identical to the current text. It would be best to align the change instructions to the clean version of draft 6. The instructions need to be explicit, showing exactly what text is being deleted or added. Once again, do not use page numbers. The page numbers in the work-in-progress draft 7 do not match any previous draft. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:45 PM To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-ac@eda.org Cc: Lisa Piper; Seligman, Erik Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Hi Stu, Here is my understanding of these notes: Note 7090: 16.9.4 Sampled value functions Page 333 (next page after Figure 16-4-Value change expressions): There is a new line after expression1 and expression2 can may be any expression allowed in assertions. If expression2 is not specified, then it defaults to 1'b1. In Draft 6. This new line is redundant. Then it is written: $past returns the sampled value of the expression expression1 that was present number_of_ticks prior to the time of evaluation of $past. sampled in the Preponed region of a particular timestep strictly prior to the one in which $past is evaluated. While should be: $past returns the sampled value of the expression expression1 that was present number_of_ticks prior to the time of evaluation of $past. sampled in the Preponed region of a particular timestep strictly prior to the one in which $past is evaluated. Note 7131: Same thing as the second part of 7090. Regards, Dmitry From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 7:39 AM To: sv-ac@server.eda.org Subject: [sv-ac] Question on editing for Mantis 1698 Can someone please define the exact corrections that are needed for bug note 7090 in Mantis 1698? Please be sure to include subclause numbers. Page numbers are meaningless, as they change frequently. Also, bug note 7131 is an observation. Is any correction needed? Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 www.sutherland-hdl.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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.Received on Fri Sep 5 12:39:04 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 05 2008 - 12:39:58 PDT