I should have just said a "few" not "lots", so no there are no others other than what I noted. Note that none of the fixes I mentioned below come from any changes noted by Stu unless I have missed the dialog. So, yes, please review below and bless them. Thanks, -Tom ________________________________ From: Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:34 AM To: Alsop, Thomas R Cc: 'sv-bc' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3 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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Apr 30 11:44:59 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 11:45:17 PDT