Hi Dmitry, I documented those that could be added. For the ones that I sent to Stu, if I recall correctly it is Neil who suggested that I do that. See attached email. Best regards, ed From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 5:43 AM To: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@eda-stds.org Subject: RE: [sv-ac] draft D7 review - update Hi Ed, Could you document in Mantis the notes you sent to Stu? Thanks, Dmitry From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Eduard Cerny Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:22 PM To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org Subject: [sv-ac] draft D7 review - update Hello, 1) While reviewing 16.1-16.4, I tried to see how deferred_immediate_assertion_item is used. I found an issue in A.6.10 where the definition of deferred_immediate_assertion_item ::= [ block_identifier : ] deferred_immediate_assertion_statement is duplicated. Added bug note to mantis #0001900 2) Syntax 16-1, it has cover #0 ( expression ) action_block I think that even though 2005 states that, it is incorrect and should be cover #0 ( expression ) statement_or_null same as for simple_immediate_cover_statement. There should be no else statement, correct? Created new Mantis entry # 0002484 3) On page 308 top, it says: There are two types of immediate assertions, simple immediate assertions and deferred immediate assertions. But then at the bottom of the page it has: There are three types of immediate assertions: immediate assert, immediate assume, and immediate cover. Probably the 2nd one should read There are three types of simple_immediate_assertion_statement: immediate assert, immediate assume, and immediate cover. But even then it may not be clear since the term immediate assert is simple_immediate_assert_statement. Created a new Mantis entrey # 0002485 4) On page 309, The execution of pass and fail statements can be controlled by using assertion action control tasks. The assertion action control tasks are described in 20.12. appears twice. I think that the 1st occurrence should be deleted. Sent an email to Stu. 5) page 309 bottom, assert_f: assert(f) $display("%m passed"); else $display("%m failed"); should be assert_f : assert(f) $info("passed"); else $error("failed"); Sent an email to Stu. 6) on page 310, before 16.4, there are 2 references to Mantis 1641, however I fail to see what it is referring to in the Mantis item. No change required 7) Page 310, Syntax 16-2: same issue as (2) above. Created new Mantis entry # 0002484 Best regards, ed -- 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 <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.
attached mail follows:
Hi Ed,
Items 1) and 4) appear to be Editorial in nature and can be addressed
in this PAR. The relevant mantis item should be placed into the
Editor state, and a bug note should be added which clearly explains
the required changes. If there isn't a relevant mantis item, an email
can be sent directly to the Editor.
The other issues should be placed into a new mantis item and will
need to wait for the next PAR to be addressed. The committees
should only be working on Editorial changes at this point in time.
However it is never a problem to open new mantis items to report
new issues.
Neil
On 09/24/08 10:48, Eduard Cerny wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> 1) While reviewing 16.1-16.4, I tried to see how
> deferred_immediate_assertion_item is used. I found an issue in A.6.10
> where the definition of
>
> deferred_immediate_assertion_item ::= [ block_identifier : ]
> deferred_immediate_assertion_statement
>
> is duplicated.
>
>
>
> 2) Syntax 16-1, it has
>
> * cover #0 ( *expression *) *action_block
>
> I think that even though 2005 states that, it is incorrect
> and should be
>
> *cover #0 ( *expression *) *statement_or_null
>
> same as for simple_immediate_cover_statement. There should
> be no else statement, correct?
>
>
>
> 3) On page 308 top, it says:
>
> There are two types of immediate assertions, /simple immediate
> assertions /and /deferred immediate assertions/.
>
> But then at the bottom of the page it has:
>
> There are three types of immediate assertions: immediate
> *assert*, immediate *assume*, and immediate *cover*.
>
> Probably the 2^nd one should read
>
> There are three types of
> simple_immediate_assertion_statement: immediate *assert*, immediate
> *assume*, and immediate *cover*.
>
> But even then it may not be clear since the term immediate
> assert is simple_immediate_assert_statement. So… what should it be ?
>
>
>
> 4) On page 309,
>
> The execution of pass and fail statements can be
> controlled by using assertion action control tasks. The
>
> assertion action control tasks are described in 20.12.
>
> appears twice. I think that the 1^st occurrence should be deleted.
>
>
>
> 5) page 309 bottom,
>
> assert_f: *assert*(f) $display("%m passed"); *else *$display("%m
> failed");
>
> should be
>
> assert_f : *assert*(f) $info("passed"); *else *$error(“failed");
>
>
>
> 6) on page 310, before 16.4, there are 2 references to Mantis 1641,
> however I fail to see what it is referring to in the Mantis item.
>
> 7) Page 310, Syntax 16-2: same issue as (2) above.
>
>
>
> Should I open new Mantis entries or how else to deal with these changes?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> ed
>
>
>
>
>
> From*:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:03 AM
> *To:* sv-ac@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-ac] Draft7 cross-review
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Please, find below assignments for Draft7 cross-review. It is important
> both to verify the changes and to make sure that the existing stuff
> remains relevant taking into account latest changes introduced by SV-AC
> and by SV-SC, There is no need to proofread the new stuff added by SV-SC.
>
>
>
> In case you find problems, please, add a note to a corresponding Mantis
> item. If the problem is not editorial, open a new Mantis item and send
> an email.
>
>
>
> When your review is completed, please, send a separate notification even
> if no problems are found. Send also a notification in case you are
> unable to make the cross-review.
>
>
>
>
>
> Assignments:
>
>
>
> · YF: 14, 16.5, 16.5
>
> · EC: 16 (beginning) - 16.4
>
> · ES: 16.8-16.10
>
> · JH: 16.11-16.14
>
> · LP: 16.15
>
> · DK: 16.16 - 16 (end)
>
> · MK: 16.6, Clause 20, Annex Q
>
> · BT: Clauses 37, 39, Annex O
>
> · TT: Annex A
>
> · DB: 16.7, Annex F
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
Received on Sun Oct 5 07:03:33 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 05 2008 - 07:04:16 PDT