RE: [sv-ac] Mantis 2478

Hi Neil,

Unfortunately it is not an editorial issue. The problem is as follows:

Mantis 1683 relaxes rules for building multiclocked properties and
sequences. Property and sequence expressions of the form @clk1 a |->
@clk2 b and  @clk1 a ##0 @clk2 b became legal, while they were illegal
according to the previous version of the LRM. But the subclause 16.14.3
was not updated accordingly, and it reads:

Clock flow eliminates the need to write clocking events in positions ***
where the clock is not allowed to
change ***. For example:
@(c) x |-> @(c) y ##1 @(d) z
can be written as
@(c) x |-> y ##1 @(d) z
*** to reinforce the restriction that the clock not change across |->
***.

etc.

Note that this restriction is no longer true and the clock may change
across |->.

To summarize, in its current form the standard is contradictory, and I
don't think we can publish it like that.

I am going to call to an email vote (I intended to call to a voice vote
yesterday, but we agreed that this change requires a careful review) to
have the committee recommendation ready for the Working Group approval.
If procedurally this vote is illegal, it may then be considered as void.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:36 AM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Mantis 2478

Hi Dmitry,

It appears that the change specified in 2478 doesn't have anything to do
with
the proposal in 1683. It sounds like you just happened to notice this
unrelated issue during your review of 1683.

Do you know which mantis item has made this text inconsistent?
Since the only changes in the proposal for 2478 is to delete some text,
there
must be a mantis item that had a proposal which made this text
inconsistent.

This doesn't appear to be strictly editorial, but the more information
that
you can provide to let us understand how this inconsistency was created,
the
easier it might be to get it approved by the Working Group. I am
currently
thinking that there was an incomplete change specified in some mantis
item
that you just now noticed.

At this point in time the committees should only be addressing editorial
issues. This issue seems to be borderline editorial, at best.

Neil


On 09/22/08 01:50, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> 
>  
> 
> While checking Mantis 1683 I found that the subclause 16.14.3 is not 
> consistent anymore with the rest of the text. I opened a new Mantis
2478 
> to address this issue, though I am not sure that we are allowed to 
> address it. IMO this issue is a SS. We will vote on this Mantis today 
> conditionally on your approval.
> 
>  
> 
> What is the right way to deal with this issue?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.