Subject: Re: [sv-ec] possible errata in 17.7.11
From: Surrendra Dudani (Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 11:36:14 PST
Hi Mike,
I think the sentence "That also means that there is no match at 5, 6, and
7." is redundant and confusing. Perhaps, it should be deleted. There are
two matches, both ending at 8, for attempts starting at 5 and 6
respectively. So, attempts 5 and 6 succeed, while all other attempts fail.
Surrendra
At 11:44 AM 2/9/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>I've been reviewing the sv-ac work and I have a question about Section
>17.7.11, Implication. In draft 4 p.227 right below figure 17-15, it
>says,
>
> "...At clock tick 8, the sequences complete according to the
> specification, resulting in a match for attempts starting at 5 and
> 6. All later attempts to match the sequence fail because
> $rose(frame) does not occur again. That also means that there is no
> match at 5, 6, and 7."
>
>Is there a match at 5 & 6 or not? Should the final sentence say
>something else, such as "... 7, 8, and 9."?
>
>Mike Burns
**********************************************
Surrendra A. Dudani
Synopsys, Inc.
377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel: 508-263-8072
Fax: 508-263-8123
email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com
**********************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 09 2004 - 11:45:32 PST