RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 26th 2007

Shalom,

 

I have consulted existing users that echo my concerns. So, the degree of
intuitiveness is perhaps subjective.

 

However, I do recognize that sophisticated users may want different
distributions, not limited to the more uniform distribution you suggest.
I would be supportive of an enhancement that extends coverage
distributions to encompass statistical distributions. Examples of such
distributions are: Gaussian , Normal. Cauchy, Binomial, Poisson, Gamma,
Exponential, Weibull, Lognormal, Chi-Square, etc...

 

Syntactically, we might add such distributions by including the optional
distribution as part of the declaration, as in:

 

bins sizes [10:Gaussian] = { ... };

 

bins addresses [10:Uniform] = { ... };

 

Then, we would only be arguing about the default distribution, which I
would suggest we leave as is due to backward compatibility and the
reasons I've already stated.

 

            Arturo

 

________________________________

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:02 PM
To: Arturo Salz; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 26th 2007

 

The new distribution is better because it is far more uniform, which is
the entire purpose. The proposed rule is extremely simple. The email
exchange was about how to implement the formula in a computationally
efficient algorithm without going through a lookup table. That is
something quite different. I would say that the current LRM algorithm is
highly non-intuitive and therefore misleading and unexpected. Also not
what users would want.

 

Shalom

	 

	 

	 2055  ___ Yes   _X_ No  

	 

	It is unclear how the new distribution is any better. As I wrote
earlier, "the rule needs to be unambiguous, but it must also be simple
enough for users to figure out what happened." Coverage reports must be
actionable, that is, users need to be able to easily determine how to
cover certain bins, and this proposal complicates that determination.

	I believe that simplicity trounces the need for uniformity. As
proof of how complex the new rules are, I submit the email exchange
between Steven Sharp and Shalom - it took these two experts several
iterations to arrive at a correct formula. Are we seriously suggesting
users must do this computation in their heads? The current rule is
simplistic but predictable.

	 

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