RE: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2362

Hi all:

I have uploaded a proposal for mantis 2362
(http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2362). I believe this captures the
feedback. Please let me know if there are additional comments.

Thanks,
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Little Scott-B11206
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:39 AM
To: Tapan Kapoor; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2362

Hi Tapan:

I had considered that after reading 16.3, but it seems a bit awkward to
have a sentence floating around after the itemized list and before the
grammar. After doing a quick survey of the LRM style, it doesn't seem
to be a major exception to style. I will put together a proposal to put
the reference after the itemized list in the second paragraph.

Thanks,
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Tapan Kapoor [mailto:tkapoor@cadence.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:26 AM
To: Little Scott-B11206; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: Mantis 2362

Scott,

I agree that the context is not the best in either case (first or last
para of 16.15). How about adding it after 2nd para (which enumerates the
contexts where concurrent assertions might appear)? This seems to align
with the same cross reference in 16.3 (for immediate assertions).

Warm regards,

Tapan

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" : Mahatma Gandhi

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>Little Scott-B11206
>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:36 PM
>To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
>Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2362
>
>Hi Tapan:
>
>I can see the need for the cross reference, but I don't think it fits
>well in that last paragraph. Would it work better as the final
sentence
>in the first paragraph of 16.15? We could add something like:
>The execution of assertion statements can be controlled using assertion
>control system tasks (see 20.11).
>
>Note: I don't think that this solution flows fantastically either, but
I
>think it feels a bit more cohesive than tacking it on to the end of the
>section.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tapan Kapoor [mailto:tkapoor@cadence.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:46 PM
>To: Eduard Cerny; Little Scott-B11206; sv-ac@server.eda.org
>Subject: RE: Mantis 2362
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>
>I see similar reference in 16.3 / 3rd para, which says (in context of
>immediate assertions):
>----
>The execution of immediate assertions can be controlled by using
>assertion control system tasks (see 20.11)
>-----
>
>Can we change this sentence (just before 16.15.1) to something similar
>like:
>------
>The execution of concurrent assertions can be controlled by using
>assertion control system tasks (see 20.11)
>------
>
>Would this retain probably intended cross-reference - in a more
>plausible style?
>
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Tapan
>
>"You must be the change you want to see in the world" : Mahatma Gandhi
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>>Eduard Cerny
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:51 PM
>>To: Little Scott-B11206; Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@server.eda.org
>>Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Mantis 2362
>>
>>Hi Scott,
>>
>>yes, you are right, I did not notice that one.
>>
>>ed
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:12 PM
>>> To: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@server.eda.org
>>> Subject: RE: Mantis 2362
>>>
>>> Hi Ed:
>>>
>>> I think that we are talking about two different sentences. You are
>>> talking about the reference to 20.12 and assertion action control
>>tasks
>>> in 16.15.1, .2, and .3. Yes, these references seem fine.
>>>
>>> I am talking about the paragraph immediately before 16.15.1 and the
>>> reference to 20.11. I believe this is a spurious reference.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:06 PM
>>> To: Little Scott-B11206; sv-ac@server.eda.org
>>> Subject: RE: Mantis 2362
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the same sentence also appears in 16.15.2 and .3, for assume and for
>>> cover. But since the paragraphs say:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I think that the reference could stay. It is just a cross ref, no?
>>>
>>> ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf
Of
>>> > Little Scott-B11206
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:01 PM
>>> > To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
>>> > Subject: [sv-ac] Mantis 2362
>>> >
>>> > Hi all:
>>> >
>>> > As Ed mentioned in the meeting mantis item 2362 refers to the
>>> paragraph
>>> > on page 394 immediately prior to section 16.15.1. I agree with
the
>>> > mantis item in saying that the last sentence in the paragraph does
>>> not
>>> > have any connection with the rest of the paragraph. I think we
can
>>> > strike the final sentence. I can put together a proposal to
>>> accomplish
>>> > this if others agree.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Scott
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> > dangerous content by 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.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by 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.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.