Hi Dmitry, Mantis 2541: changes complete 16.14 review: no issues found Annex N: I just looked at assertion related stuff. The original mantis item states: New property type >= 900 #define vpiIsCoverSequence 900 WHY: No need to enter the 900+ range yet, since slack still exists in SV property numbering. The only significant change was the define value for vpiIsCoverSequence. The new value is the same as vpiClockedSeq, which may be ok since one is an object type and the other is a method and it says these numbers may overlap. I'm just not sure why vpiIsCoverSequence is a method. #define vpiClockedSeq 659 . #define vpiIsCoverSequence 900 659 In addition, I noticed that there are others that have numbers in the 900's that were not changed #define vpiRestrict 901 #define vpiClockedProp 902 #define vpiLetDecl 903 #define vpiLetExpr 904 #define vpiCasePropertyItem 905 /* property case item */ Lisa _____ From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:58 AM To: sv-ac@server.eda.org Subject: [sv-ac] Draft P1800/D9-preliminary review Hi all, It is time to review Draft P1800/D9. Each SV-AC member is requested to review the implementation of Mantis items assigned to him/her, and in addition the assigned fragment of the LRM. The review is due by 07/10/2009. Please, send a notification when you are done, with the list of issues found or with the indication that the implementation is correct. If you find an issue with Mantis implementation, please, add a corresponding note to the Mantis with the indication of the actions required from the editor, and move the Mantis to the Editor status. If no issues have been found, keep the Mantis unchanged. Mantis list: 2661 "Syntax 16-19" is in blue Dmitry Korchemny 2660 Add indices to expressions Doron Bustan 2659 Backward compatibility issue with sequence property Doron Bustan 2658 Default values for untyped formals Dmitry Korchemny 2656 Clarify difference of $global_clock handling in simulation and formal verification Tom Thatcher 2652 Future value functions need clarification Erik_Seligman 2650 Ambiguity in a sequence repetition [*0] definition Erik_Seligman 2612 `true should have a backtick in a sequence example Dmitry Korchemny 2541 syntax errors - missing parenthesis Lisa Piper 2516 Another contradiction of existing text with 2398 needs to be fixed Erik_Seligman 2486 Scope of Annex F definition of "specify" is not clear. john_havlicek 2478 Clock flow subclause is not consistent with multiclocked property definition Dmitry Korchemny Fragments: Clause 3 (relevant parts) - Tapan Clause 15 (relevant parts) - Manisha Clause 16 Beginning - 16.8 (including) Ed 16.9 Ben 16.10 - 16.12 (including), 16.17 - Manisha 16.13 - Doron 16.14 - Lisa 16.15 - Tom 16.16 - 16.18 (including) Dmitry Clause 17 - Erik Clause 20 (relevant parts) - Manisha Clause 37 (relevant parts) - Bassam Clause 39 - Bassam Annex A - Tapan Annex B - Tapan Annex C - Tapan Annex F - John Annex N - Lisa Please, notify me if you are unable to review the assigned fragments/Mantis items. 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 <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 Thu Jul 9 07:54:01 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 09 2009 - 07:55:11 PDT