[sv-dc] RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.

This seems like too much repetition of the existing rules, in too much detail. After the user slogs through all that, they will think "but how are those different from the existing rules?" and miss the point of the note.

They may miss it anyway. Why not say exactly what we are trying to point out? Something like

NOTE - This default means that a logic bit in an unresolved user-defined nettype will be X if it has no drivers, not Z. In a resolved nettype, the value would be determined by the resolution function executed with an empty array of driver values.

From: Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:39 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Steven Sharp; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.

Scott,

can we add discussion about better generalized specification for the NOTE that covers datatypes such as logic, logic vector or unpacked datatypes with members logic or logic vector.

We want to say something like:

NOTE-- The default value for a net of a logic based datatype that has a user-defined nettype is X.

The LRM does not have a specific name for those logic based datatypes. Should we rather write:

NOTE-- The default value for a net that has a user-defined nettype is X when its datatype is either
  - logic
  - logic vector
  - unpacked array or unpacked struct recursively composed of logic or logic vector datatype elements.

 Francoise
        '
________________________________
From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:25 AM
To: Steven Sharp; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-dc] RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.
I think Francoise's sentence would cover that.
Note that the question would also be, I think, for a structure that contains a member of type logic (bit or vector).
In order to pass IEEE inspection, it would be easier if written as a separate paragraph, as:

"NOTE--..."

Shalom

From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:30 AM
To: Francoise Martinolle; Little Scott-B11206; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.

I think Shalom wanted it pointed out that it is x even if it is undriven, if it has no resolution function.

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Little Scott-B11206; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-dc] RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.

I removed the duplication.
At the end of the paragraph describing initialization of nets, I added the following note:
Note that the default value for a logic net of a user-defined nettype is x.

Is that sufficient?
Francoise
        '
________________________________
From: Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Francoise Martinolle; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.
Hi Francoise:

v20 still has two change sets for 7.2.2 (bottom of pg. 5 and top of pg. 6) where the first one is correct and the second is old and incorrect.

Was anything added to clarify the differences in initial values between a net and a net of a user-define nettype whose type is a single logic bit?

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-dc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-dc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-dc] RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.

Thanks Shalom,
I uploaded version 20 which corrects these.

Francoise
       '

________________________________
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:57 AM
To: Francoise Martinolle; sv-dc@eda.org
Subject: RE: new version 19 for 3398 proposal.
Minor editorial comments:

1. 6.6: "There are different kinds of net types: built-in or user-defined."
Add "two" before "different". I don't usually like adding numbers, but here I think it is better.

2. In net_declaration syntax, "delay_control" should be blue, not bolded.

3. In 28.12, delete "(Resolution of nets with user-defined nettypes)." That is not the name of subclause 6.6.7.

4. In the change to net_port_type syntax at the end of the document, the FROM part should be black, not blue. In both FROM and TO, there should be a blank, not an underscore, before "data_type_or_implicit".

Regards,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.