RE: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

Doug,
 
I agree with your objections 1-3 about the current version.  I'm happy
though with the compatibility break you mention in 4 (from default
'throughout' to default '#0'), because unique/priority themselves are
already broken.  A precedent is the backward incompatible fixes to
'generate' in 2005.
 
    5)  I also object to the re-use of the 'throughout' operator as a
qualifier entirely unrelated to its conventional meaning in SVA
sequences.  I suppose the intent is 'throughout the time step'.  But I
doubt anyone will really want this 2005 immediate-style semantics going
forward anyway.
 
I recommend not changing the syntax of unique/0 and priority, but only
changing the semantics.
 
-- Brad

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Warmke, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:22 AM
To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008



Hello all,

 

I vote No on Mantis 2008 for the following reasons:

 

1)      The related Mantis 2005 has been rewritten such that the
event-control
form of the syntax is no longer present.  That had too many unresolved
issues,

so SV-AC decided to postpone that enhancement until sometime in the
future.

Thus, the event-control aspect of 2008 should be removed, too.

2)      The example in the unique/priority if area specifically mentions
a 4 ns delay.
But that is not actually the case in the example.  Rather, this is an
example
that is immune to zero-delay glitches in the active region set.  Note
that 
evaluation of the unique-ness/priority-ness of the conditions is
supposed

to happen in the Observed region, as per alignment with the deferred
assertion feature of Mantis 2005.  Thus, "zero-delay glitch" isn't quite
an

accurate term.  It should be "zero-delay glitch in the active region
set".

(Since oddball glitches caused by zero-delay oscillations across the

active and reactive region sets would still fire the violation checks)

3)      Speaking of "violation checks", I would prefer it if 2008 caused
that wording

to be used when describing unique/priority if/case.

4)      I'm not in favor of the compatibility break.  I think that the
proposed default
behavior is too sophisticated to be allowed without the #0 syntactic
clue.
It's not hard to add those #0 into the source code, and it does give the
reader the clue that unique/priority violations will be checked with
some
zero-delay semantic.  In addition, the current version of the construct
can

work fine if placed in clocked procedures that include logic when
assigning
the clocked output variables of the procedure.  (Thus, the current
semantics

aren't totally useless, though I do agree they are pretty useless for
combinational

procedures)

 

I'd like to hear what others have to say about 4).

If there was enough weight in favor of making the compatibility break,

I will lift this particular objection, since I do think 2008 has a lot
of value

and should be passed in this version of the standard.

 

Regards,

Doug

 

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:53 PM
To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

 

 

-You have until 8am PST, Monday, January 21, 2008 to respond 
-An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible 
 voters respond with a YES vote. 
-If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason.

 The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference
call. 
-Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note 
       (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). 

As of the January 7, 2008 meeting, the eligible voters are: 

Brad Pierce        
Shalom Bresticker  
Cliff Cummings      
Mark Hartoog        
Francoise Martinolle 
Karen Pieper       
Dave Rich          
Steven Sharp       
Gordon Vreugdenhil 
Stu Sutherland 
Alex Gran 
Don Mills 
Heath Chambers 
Tom Alsop 
Doug Warmke 
Mike Burns 

SVDB 2008 ___Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008
<http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008>  

 


-- 
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. 

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