RE: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the message - I mistakenly missed today's meeting due to an
email malfunction.

Yes, I agree with you. The problem is precisely the indentation, which
made it look as if the auto-bins were the constituents of the
user-defined bin i_zero. I understood what David wrote but forgot to
attach a proposal to the Mantis I created. The equivalent text you write
below seems like a very nice way to resolve this issue. Should I add
this as an official proposal?

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:33 PM
To: David Scott
Cc: Arturo Salz; SV_EC List
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Typo in coverage section of Draft 6

Hi Arturo,

We breifly discussed this point in the sv-ec conference call this
morning.
No further progress was made in the meeting. Mehdi put it on the agenda
since
you hadn't responded to David's latest email (copied below) and he
wanted to
make sure that no changes were required.

I just now took a look at this and found that I had to read it about 4
times
before I realized what it was saying. Maybe I'm slow, but I suspect that
you
were having a similar problem when you read it in the LRM.

Note that the indentation used here is most likely a source of part of
the
confusion. The following is in the LRM. I don't know about everone elses
browser, but in my browser I see this indentation showing up in the html
version of the Mantis 1655 proposal. The Editor duplicated what I see
there.

     i_zero
        <i[1],j[0]>
        <i[1],j[1]>

This is equivalent to the following

     i_zero            // user-specified bin for <i[0],j[0]> and
<i[0],j[1]>
     <i[1],j[0]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained
     <i[1],j[1]>       // an auto-generated bin that is retained

The text is NOT showing what is represented by bin i_zero. Instead it is
showing the 3 bins that are retained for cross x2. i_zero is a separate
bin of
its own.

I agree with David, in that what is shown is consistent with the text
added
by Mantis 1655. I do however think that adding some comments and
adjusting the
indentation would help the reader. Note that cross x1 also uses this odd
indentation style.


Neil



David Scott wrote:
> Arturo,
> 
> This is Mantis 1655 (http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1655) and the 
> "i[1]" is correct.  This was approved by the SV-EC.
> 
> The reasoning is that cross products involving "i[0]" are already 
> covered by i_zero because that cross bin was specified with the select

> expression involving "intersect { 0 }".  The point of the Mantis was
to 
> specify that automatically-generated bins are also within the cross,
but 
> only for those cross products not already specified by the
user-defined 
> cross bins.  That leaves the two automatically-generated cross product

> bins involving "i[1]".
> 
> -- David S
> 
> 
> 
> Arturo Salz wrote:
>> There is a typo in the example of section 18.6 (page 468) of draft 6.
>>
>> The i[1] is incorrect, it should be i[0].
>> The explanation of cross-products should be changed
>>
>> FROM
>>
>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>     i_zero
>>         <i[1],j[0]>
>>         <i[1],j[1]>
>>
>> TO
>>
>> Cross x2 has the following bins:
>>     i_zero
>>         <i[0],j[0]>
>>         <i[0],j[1]>
>>
>> I believe this is just a typo. This is Mantis 2428.
>>
>>     Arturo
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 

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