[sv-ac] my cross review results so far

From: John Havlicek <john.havlicek_at_.....>
Date: Mon Oct 06 2008 - 08:55:39 PDT
Hi All:

Below are the results of my cross review so far.

I am still reading 16.13.17, the rest of 16.13, and
16.14.

J.H.


Draft 7 Cross Review:
---------------------

16.11
-----
. No issue found.

16.12
-----
. There is an inconsistency of fonts used for "X" and "Z".  In the item
  for $isunkown, they are set in Courier, but in the last sentence of the
  section they are set in Roman.

16.13
-----
. The use of "a checker" in the second sentence of the section clashes with
  the new checker construct and should be changed to "an obligation".
. A named property may be declared in a checker, but this location is 
  not in the list at the beginning of the section.
. There should be no red semicolon after property_statement_spec in the 
  production for property_declaration in Syntax 16-16.
. In the future, we should fold together some of the RHSs of the production
  for property_expr, e.g. combine

     nexttime property_expr
     nexttime \[ constant_expression \] property_expr

  into

     nexttime [ \[ constant_expression \] ] property_expr

  where "[]" are the black non-bold brackets used to denote an optional
  part of the syntax and "\[\]" are the bold red brackets used to denote
  syntax terminals.
. Change

     A formal argument may be referenced in the body property_spec of the
     declaration of the named property.
  
  to
  
     A formal argument may be referenced in the body property_statement_spec of
     the declaration of the named property.

. I don't think it is possible any longer for a reference to a property formal
  argument to stand in the place of a property_spec.  I don't think it should be
  possible for a property formal argument to stand in the place of a
  property_statement_spec.
. The paragraph beginning

     A disable iff clause can be attached to a property_expr to yield a
     property_spec.

  needs to account also for a property_statement and a property_statement_spec.
  This can be done by changing

     property_expr

  to

     property_expr (resp., property_statement)

  and changing

     property_spec

  to

     property_spec (resp., property_statement_spec)

  throughout the paragraph.

16.13.1
-------
. Change the title of this section to "Sequential property" and change the
  first sentence from 

     Sequence properties ...

  to 

     Sequential properties ...

  Rationale: Consistency.  The phrase "sequential property" is used throughout,
  and "sequence property" only appears in the section title and the beginning of
  the first sentence.  However, the other sections seem to follow the form
  "<noun> property" rather than "<adjective> property", so an alternative would
  be to change "sequential property" to "sequence property" throughout.

16.13.3
-------
. Change 

     property_expr or property_expr

  to

     property_expr1 or property_expr2

  Rationale:  The sentence following refers to "property_expr1" and
  "property_expr2", but they are nowhere to be found.


16.13.4
-------
. Change 

     property_expr and property_expr

  to

     property_expr1 and property_expr2

  Rationale:  The sentence following refers to "property_expr1" and
  "property_expr2", but they are nowhere to be found.

16.13.5
-------
. Change 

     if (expression_or_dist) property_expr else property_expr

  to

     if (expression_or_dist) property_expr1 and property_expr2

  Rationale: The second sentence following refers to "property_expr1" and
  "property_expr2", but they are nowhere to be found.

16.13.6
-------
. In Syntax 16-17, change "->" to "|->" and change "=>" to "|=>".
. The discussion of property data_endand the waveform in Figure 16-14 
  are suspect because there are many failing scenarios not mentioned
  and because the label of the figure is "Conditional sequence matching"
  when this is a section about properties.
. What is the "sequence specification" referenced in the following?  This
  section is about properties.

     Signal irdy transitions to high at clock tick 8, matching the sequence
     specification completely for the attempt that began at clock tick 6.

  Figure 16-15 is also labelled in a strange way -- "Conditional sequences".

16.13.7
-------
. Change 

     property_expr implies property_expr

  to

     property_expr1 implies property_expr2

  Rationale:  The sentence following refers to "property_expr1" and
  "property_expr2", but they are nowhere to be found.
. Change 

     property_expr iff property_expr

  to

     property_expr1 iff property_expr2

  Rationale:  The sentence following refers to "property_expr1" and
  "property_expr2", but they are nowhere to be found.

16.13.8
-------
. Change "body property_spec" to "body property_statement_spec".

16.13.9
-------
. Change "This clause is used to trigger" to "These forms are used to trigger".
  Rationale:  This sentence is not referring to clauses in the LRM, so the 
  use of "clause" is confusing.

16.13.10
--------
. No issue found.

16.13.11
--------
. No issue found.

16.13.12
--------
. Change

     The property p4 evaluates to true provided that there exist a current or
     future clock tick

  to


     The property p4 evaluates to true provided that there exists a current or
     future clock tick

  Rationale:  Grammar.
  
16.13.13
--------
. Change

     The property p2 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exist a current or
     future clock tick

  to


     The property p2 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exists a current or
     future clock tick

  Rationale:  Grammar.
. Change

     The property p5 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exist a clock tick  

  to

     The property p5 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exists a clock tick  

  Rationale:  Grammar.
. Change

     The property p7 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exist a clock tick

  to

     The property p7 evaluates to true if, and only if, there exists a clock tick

  Rationale:  Grammar.

16.13.14
--------
. No issue found.

16.13.15
--------
. No issue found.

16.13.16
--------
. Did not re-review.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Oct 6 09:23:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 06 2008 - 09:24:08 PDT