RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker variable semantics: interoperability and portability issues.

They are required to have them in order to be SV-compliant.
But you're correct about temporal constraints.
 
Shalom


________________________________

	From: Korchemny, Dmitry 
	Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:53 PM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom; 'Mirek Forczek'; 'sv-ec@server.eda.org'
	Cc: 'sv-ac@server.eda.org'
	Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker
variable semantics: interoperability and portability issues.
	
	

	Yes, they have, but are they required having them? Also, it is
not always straightforward to use constraint-solving technology to solve
the temporal constraints,

	 

	Dmitry 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Bresticker, Shalom 
	Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:49 PM
	To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Mirek Forczek; sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker
variable semantics: interoperability and portability issues.

	 

	But simulators already have to have constraint solvers?

	 

	Shalom

		 

		[DK] There are several reasons for doing that. One is
that the assumptions may be contradictory or contradict the RTL. The
other reason is not to require from a simulator to have an embedded
formal verification engine. Without such an engine you cannot guarantee
to satisfy all the assumptions (and even with it you can have a
blow-up).

		 

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