[sv-ec] RE: More comments on mantis 890 (part 1)

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the comments.
Please see my embedded remarks.

Regards,
Doug 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:30 PM
> To: Warmke, Doug
> Cc: SV_EC List
> Subject: More comments on mantis 890 (part 1)
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> I have the following comments on mantis 890 version 8 (part 1).
> 
> Page 2, section 15.10
> 
> - The note at the bottom of the changes to this section is redundant.
>   The text at the bottom of the second blue paragraph on this 
> page discusses
>   this already.
> 
>   I think that this note should be removed.
DOUG: Done in SV-890-9.

> 
> Page 2, section 15.12
> 
> - The note was changed in version 8 of the proposal.
> 
>   "NOTE - When the clocking block event is triggered by the 
> execution of a
>    program, there is a potential race between the update of a 
> clocking block
>    input value and programs that read that value without 
> synchronizing with
>    the corresponding clocking event."
> 
>    The following text was added: "... without synchronizing with the
>    corresponding clocking event."
> 
>    Can't a race occur even if the synchronization is taking place?
DOUG: Already discussed in the last SV-EC meeting.
No change made to the 890 proposal.

> 
> Page 3, section 15.14, first blue paragraph
> 
> - "For zero skew clocking block outputs with no cycle delay, 
> synchronous
>    drives shall schedule new values in the Re-NBA region of 
> the current time
>    slot."
> 
>    This isn't always true. As mentioned in the previous paragraph "the
>    corresponding signal changes value at the indicated 
> clocking event".
>    The statement which performs the synchronous drive may not 
> be executing in
>    the time slot where the clocking event occurred. So this 
> statement about
>    scheduling in the current time slot is not always true. 
> The synchronous
>    drive may need to be scheduled in the time slot 
> corresponding to the next
>    clocking event.

DOUG: Changes made as per discussion in last SV-EC meeting.

> 
> page 4, section 15.14, second paragraph
> 
> - The first part of this paragraph has changes from the LRM, 
> which are no
>   longer in blue.
> 
>   For some reason, the first set of changes to this paragraph 
> are no longer
>   in blue. Version 7 of the proposal looks correct, version 8 
> seems to have
>   some blue text shown in black.
> 
>   "...value after the ## in the cycle_delay production..."  
> should be blue?
>   And the corresponding text being replaced should show up 
> with red cross outs.

DOUG: Oops, I don't know how that happened.
The editing markups have been restored to their condition in SV-890-7.

> 
> 
> Page 6, section 15.14.2, next to the last blue paragraph
> 
> - Typo
> 
>   "If a synchronous drive and a procedural assignment write 
> to the same
>    variable in the same time, the writes shall take place in 
> an arbitrary
>    order."
> 
>   This text had a problem in version 7 of the proposal, it 
> was updated in
>   version 8, but it still isn't quite right.
> 
>   From:
>      in the same time, the
>   To:
>      in the same time slot, the
DOUG: Done in SV-890-9.

Thanks again,
Doug

> 
> Neil
> 

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