RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST

It works for me.

-- Brad 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Cerny 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:57 AM
To: Brad Pierce; 'Eduard Cerny'
Cc: 'sv-champions@eda.org'; 'Korchemny, Dmitry';
'john.havlicek@freescale.com'
Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST

Hi Brad,

I have uploaded a modified version, with a slight change in the par. you
mention. Also attached here. Let me know if that wording is acceptable.

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:18 AM
> To: Eduard Cerny; 'Eduard Cerny'
> Cc: 'sv-champions@eda.org'; 'Korchemny, Dmitry'; 
> 'john.havlicek@freescale.com'
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST
> 
> Thanks, Ed, that answers the question about why an action_block was 
> used.  I shouldn't have forgot about 1460 so quickly!
> 
> So the paragraph following Syntax 16-1 does need to be updated somehow

> to take into account the possibility of immediates assumes with 
> action_blocks.
> 
>       "The action_block specifies what actions are taken upon success 
> or failure of the assertion. The statement associated with the success

> of the assert statement is the first statement. It is called the pass 
> statement and is executed if the expression evaluates to true. The 
> pass statement can, for example, record the number of successes for a 
> coverage log, but can be omitted altogether. If the pass statement is 
> omitted, then no userspecified action is taken when the assert 
> expression is true. The statement associated with else is called a 
> fail statement and is executed if the expression evaluates to false. 
> The else statement can also be omitted.
> The action block is executed immediately after the evaluation of the 
> assert expression."
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:37 AM
> To: Brad Pierce; Eduard Cerny
> Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; Korchemny, Dmitry; 
> john.havlicek@freescale.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST
> 
> Brad,
> 
> I believe this is covered by #1460: 
> http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1460
> 
> ed
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brad Pierce [mailto:bpierce@synopsys.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:57 PM
> > To: Eduard Cerny
> > Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; Korchemny, Dmitry; 
> > john.havlicek@freescale.com
> > Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Meeting reminder - August 15th 9am PST
> > 
> > Ed,
> > 
> > Regarding http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=1729 ,
> why does an
> > immediate assume statement need an action block, but a concurrent 
> > assume statement does not?
> > 
> > Also, the paragraph after Syntax 16-1 about action blocks
> has not been
> > updated to take into account action_blocks on immediate
> assumptions.  
> > It is still written as if only immediate assertions could
> have action
> > blocks.
> > 
> > -- Brad
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.