[sv-champions] RE: [sv-sc] Minutes from the Champion's 7/31 conference call: 2398 edited

In 9.6.2:

"The disable statement can also be used to terminate execution of a
labeled statement, including a deferred assertion (See clause 16.4). or
a procedural concurrent assertion (See clause 16.15.5 (editor correct
reference))." 

The word "clause" should be deleted twice. (The first comes from Mantis
2005 and is a mistake there also.)

Thanks,
Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seligman, Erik 
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 11:22 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; 
> sv-champions@server.eda.org
> Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-sc] Minutes from the Champion's 7/31 
> conference call: 2398 edited
> 
> Hi Shalom-- thanks for the detailed review!
> 
> I've posted another revision (also attached here), which 
> should address these issues. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:22 AM
> To: Seligman, Erik; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; sv-champions@server.eda.org
> Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-sc] Minutes from the Champion's 7/31 
> conference call: 2398 edited
> 
> Erik,
> 
> I don't remember the entire discussion, especially the issue 
> in 16.5.5.1 about what happens if the first pass of the loop 
> is at time 0. I understand the issue about the first pass, 
> but I don't understand the issue at time 0. I think it was 
> related to the initialization of i at time 0.
> 
> So the way you have changed it, to read, 
> 
> "In any given clock cycle, each of these assertions will 
> result in 10 queued executions, assuming that (posedge clk) 
> does not occur at time 0,"
> 
> I don't think is correct. I think there will always be 10 
> queued executions, even at time 0. I think the time 0 issue 
> is in a different area.
> 
> The bugnote from the Champions discussion has the statement, 
> "Static variable initialization is the same as performing the 
> assignment in an initial procedure." I don't think this is 
> correct. If you look in the LRM and in the minutes, you find 
> that static initialization occurs before initial procedures, 
> but in 1364, it was indeed like an initial procedure. That is 
> a change that was made from 1364 to 1800.
> 
> 
> 16.15.5 now has, "Each the entries in this queue is said to 
> be a pending procedural assertion instance." The word "of" 
> after "each" should not have been deleted.
> 
> 
> Regarding "attempts" and "evaluation attempts": "attempts" 
> should be globally changed to "evaluation attempts", as it 
> generally is in the LRM, except that if in a particular 
> paragraph, you say "evaluation attempt" on its first mention 
> there, then you can shorten it to just "attempt" if it is 
> used again closely after.
> 
> 
> Please note the proper use of the word "clause" in the text 
> to refer to a section of the LRM. The rule is that "clause" 
> refers to an entire clause, such as "Clause 16". To refer to 
> a subclause, such as "16.14", one either mentions just the 
> number or one can add the word "subclause".
> 
> 
> Regarding the paragraph, "Also, note that this is an area of 
> backwards-incompatibility between this standard and Clause 
> 16.14 of the IEEE Std 1800-2005 standard.  In the 2005 
> definition, en would have been detected as the inferred 
> enabling condition (a definition that no longer exists in 
> this standard) of a9 and always sampled, so a9 and a10 would 
> have identical behavior," the suggestion of the Champions was 
> to change this into an informative note like others in the 
> LRM, in smaller font, that start "NOTE--". If the IEEE editor 
> notices this paragraph, she may require that change anyway.
> 
> Regards,
> Shalom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-sc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-sc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
> > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 1:35 AM
> > To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; sv-champions@server.eda.org
> > Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-sc] Minutes from the Champion's 7/31 
> conference call: 
> > 2398 edited
> > 
> > Hi guys--
> > 
> > I have attempted to implement the requested friendly amendments to 
> > 2398.  Champions, if you suggested a change, pls take a 
> quick look at 
> > the change-tracked doc here to see if it is correctly implemented.
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-sc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-sc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:24 PM
> > To: sv-champions@server.eda.org
> > Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: [sv-sc] Minutes from the Champion's 7/31 conference call
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and is
believed to be clean.