RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Wed Apr 30 2008 - 11:33:51 PDT
Hi,
 
You wrote "lots". Are they just those listed here or are there also
others? I'll review them in detail tomorrow. From a scan, it looks like
some things you note here are real mistakes I made, which is why I
requested a review, but some are changes that Stu or I deliberately made
and think are correct. I'll respond tomorrow.
 
Shalom


________________________________

	From: Alsop, Thomas R 
	Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:17 PM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom
	Cc: 'sv-bc'
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of
clause 12.5.3
	
	

	Shalom, there are lots of problems with this revision.  I have
made the changes I have noted below and linked in the new version. The
only change I did not make pertains to my very first question
highlighted below.  I think it doesn't change and should remain as
"expressions".  If so we need to upload my rev2 version to EDA.org.
Thanks, -Tom

	 

	12.4.2 - Is this "expressions" or "conditions"?  Seems like the
expressions are being evaluated.  If so, no change needed to your doc.

	Unique-if and unique0-if assert that there is no overlap in a
series of if-else-if conditions, i.e., they are mutually exclusive and
hence it is safe for the expressions conditions to be evaluated in
parallel. 

	 

	You also completely struck this out with no replacement.

	 

	For unique-if and unique0-if, an implementation shall also issue
a warning if it determines that no condition is true, or it is possible
that no condition is true, and the final if does not have a
corresponding else. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not issue a
warning if it determines that no condition is true.

	 

	It should be replaced with:

	For unique-if, an implementation shall also issue a violation
report if it determines that no condition is true, or it is possible
that no condition is true, and the final if does not have a
corresponding else. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not issue a
violation report if it determines that no condition is true.

	 

	12.5.3

	 

	4th paragraph, 1st sentence: You have

	If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
implementation shall issue a warning message if no case_item matches

	 

	Should be:

	If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
implementation shall issue a  warning  message violation report if no
case_item matches

	 

	4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: You struck out this sentence.  I
don't believe this should be removed. Only the third sentence should be
removed.

	If the case is qualified as unique0, the implementation shall
not issue a violation report if no case_item matches. 

	 

	Just before examples:

	 

	NOTE-By specifying unique or priority, it is not necessary to
code a default case to trap unexpected case values

	 

	Should be:

	 

	NOTE-By specifying unique, unique0, or priority, it is not
necessary to code a default case to trap unexpected case values

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Bresticker, Shalom 
	Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:12 AM
	To: Alsop, Thomas R
	Cc: 'sv-bc'
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of
clause 12.5.3

	 

	But check what I did. I might have missed something or done
something wrong. I also made a few more minor changes, particularly
deleting what I identified as a redundancy in 12.4.2.

	 

	Shalom

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Alsop, Thomas R 
		Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:10 PM
		To: Bresticker, Shalom
		Cc: 'sv-bc'
		Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion
review of clause 12.5.3

		Shalom, Thanks a bunch.  I didn't know it was difficult
to cut and paste.  Had I known I would have just done the work you just
did.  I'll remember that for future reference. Appreciate this very
much, -Tom

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Bresticker, Shalom 
		Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:41 AM
		To: Alsop, Thomas R
		Cc: sv-bc
		Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion
review of clause 12.5.3

		 

		I noticed one sentence in the new 12.4.2.1 came out in
black instead of blue. I fixed that already.

		A lot of the keywords came out in Times font instead of
Courier. I'll trust the editor to handle those. What's important is that
they are in bold, so they are easy to spot.

		 

		Shalom

			 

			
________________________________


			From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
			Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:13 PM
			To: Alsop, Thomas R
			Cc: sv-bc
			Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need
Champion review of clause 12.5.3

			How about this?

			 

			Shalom

				 

				
________________________________


				From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
				Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:53 AM
				To: Alsop, Thomas R
				Cc: sv-bc
				Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will
need Champion review of clause 12.5.3

				Tom,

				 

				He can't just copy and paste them. There
are change bars to deal with, the side boxes noting the Mantis numbers,
font fixes (e.g., keywords needs to be bold), red strikeouts disappear
in Draft 6, and blue additions in Draft 5 become black in Draft 6.

				 

				Shalom

				 

				
________________________________


				From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
				Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:52 AM
				To: Alsop, Thomas R; sv-bc
				Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will
need Champion review of clause 12.5.3

				Tom,

				 

				I have NOT yet looked at the new
proposal, but I think it would be enough to write in the Note to Editor
that the proposal is relative to Draft 5.

				 

				Shalom

				 

				
________________________________


				From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Alsop, Thomas R
				Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:53 AM
				To: sv-bc
				Subject: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need
Champion review of clause 12.5.3

				Stu,

				 

				I have taken the previous version of
this proposal and now reworked it on top of Draft5. I have uploaded it
to EDA.org. Here is my note to the editor now:
				
				(Note to Editor: The sections below
contain the changes from Mantis items 1041, 1294, 2131, and 1345 are all
merged into this version of 2008. All these changes were done on top of
Draft5. In essence clause 12.4.2 and 12.5.3 can be cut and pasted into
Draft6. Clauses 12.4.2.1, 12.4.2.2, 12.5.3.1, and 12.5.3.2 are new to
Draft6").
				
				I sifted through this one sentence at a
time. I noticed a couple of very subtle changes that I had to make in
12.5.3 on top of what I already had in my proposal WRT to what I saw in
Draft5. Enough that I would ask the champions to review only this
clause. All the other clauses are okay.

				 

				In particular this sentence was added in
the 4th paragraph of 12.5.3 "If the case is qualified as unique0, the
simulator implementation shall not issue a violation report if no case
item case_item matches"  

				 

				I tried to be careful to keep the
strikethroughs that you had too.

				 

				Thanks, -Tom

				
				-- 
				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. 

	
---------------------------------------------------------------------
				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. 

	
---------------------------------------------------------------------
			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. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Received on Wed Apr 30 11:43:52 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 11:44:37 PDT