Subject: [sv-bc] Fwd: Re: SV-BC open issue number 6
From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 09:07:15 PDT
Here is Shalom's commentary on the scheduling issue he filed.
K
>Sender: shalom@az33exr04.mot.com
>Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:08:49 +0300
>From: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.COM>
>Subject: Re: SV-BC open issue number 6
>X-pstn-levels: (C:83.1967 M:99.4056 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:43.2875 )
>X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) pmCr
>X-pstn-addresses: from <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
>
>Hi, Karen.
>
>This is 1364-2001 ETF issue #57, I think.
>
>I know that SV-BC did work on the scheduling algorithm, but I have not
>reveiwed
>it, so I can not say whether it answers my concerns.
>
>Probably not, since they are inherent in 1364-2001 as it stands.
>
>As for "interleaving processes", I was not referring to processes in the SV
>sense, but rather to processes as referred to in Section 5 of 1364-2001.
>
>Bottom line: I think this is a 1364-2001 issue. I doubt it is solved in SV.
>Mostly I wanted the SV committee to be aware of the problem.
>
>Shalom
>
>
>Karen Pieper wrote:
>
> > Hi, Shalom,
> >
> > Can you check out SV-BC open issue number 6? It has your name
> on it.
> >
> > http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/display_issue.cgi?issue_num=6
> >
> > We can't quite tell from the description if all of the issue has been
> > addressed, and were hoping
> > that you could either explain the issue more fully, or tell us that we
> > addressed it in SV 3.1. We
> > think that we removed the bit about interleaving processes, so we need your
> > feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > K
>
>--
>Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
>Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
>Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
>POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 09:09:35 PDT