RE: [sv-ec] new proposals for 976 & 1457

I still have problems with the proposal for 976.

 

1.    The proposal says that the index type cannot be real.

 

2.    The proposal says in 5.10.8, "If the index type is an integral
value that is smaller than the size of the corresponding index...". This
is confusing. It uses "index" twice with different meanings. The first
'index' is called 'argument' in the preceding sentence. 'index type'
could be misinterpreted to refer to the type of the index of the array.
Probably 'argument type' or 'index variable type' is better. Besides
that, it says, "if the index type is an integral value", but a type is
not a value.

 

3.    In addition, I think "size of the corresponding index" is still
ambiguous. Is the size of 1 one bit or 32 bits?

 

4.    "corresponding index" is also an ambiguous phrase.

 

5.    Table 5-1 still needs an entry for real types. This table refers
to element types, not index types. Note, however, that this needs to be
coordinated with SV-BC on issue 957. Yesterday, BC concluded that
probably Tables 5-1 and 6-1 should be unified, I think.

 

6.    The proposal should specify that 'truncation' is from the left.

 

7.    Finally, I questioned the restriction in 5.9 that index_type may
not declare a type.

 

I'm sorry to be so picky about the language, but one has to remember
that the LRM is not only for people who already know what the LRM is
supposed to mean and were in on the discussions. The language also has
to be clear enough so that a new user who has a reasonable background in
hardware and software can understand it clearly. 

 

(There are several types of unclearness. One is ambiguity of the type
that one sees more than one interpretation that seems legitimate.
Another type is where the apparent meaning of the text does not seem to
be logical. Yet another type is where you simply can't figure out what
it is trying to say. And another type is where the text is misleading
and seems to have a certain meaning which seems legitimate, but is
actually wrong.)

 

Shalom

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:48 PM
To: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ec] new proposals for 976 & 1457 

 

Mehdi,

 

These issues are ready for an e-mail vote. 

 

Dave

 

0000976 <http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000976>
0001457 <http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001457>


 

David Rich
Verification Technologist
Design Verification & Test Division
Mentor Graphics Corporation
dave_rich@mentor.com
Office:   408 487-7206
Cell:     510 589-2625