Swapnajit --
I think you are correct that something went wrong here. Mantis 1777
changed the sequence of sampled values, without -- as far as I can tell
-- altering text about bins b2 and b3. The behavior of bins b2 and b3
used to be straightforward because the sampled values 3 and 2
alternated, and I think that behavior would change with the new sampled
values. Take a look at Draft 4 (or the 2005 standard) if you want to
see how it was before.
Important note: I can't open any of the HTML attachments to Mantis
1777, including the final proposal. I can open the PDF attachment of
an earlier proposal. The modifications were introduced in Draft 5, so
you can infer the approved proposal from the results. The Mantis
proposal was written by Don Mills.
I think a new Mantis is necessary to clean this up. Will Cadence be
filing one?
Dave
Swapnajit Chakraborti wrote:
There
seems to be an error in the following text in P1800-2009 draft6 from
coverage section 18.5.1:
and the sequence of sampled values for
coverpoint variable v
1st
Sample
| 5th 10th 15th
| | | |
1 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2
3 1 5 5 5 5 5 5
the above sequence causes transition bin b2 to be incremented on the
6th sample (3 nonconsecutive twos),
and
transition bin b3 to be
incremented on the 7th sample (3 nonconsecutive threes).
Actually, this should be "b3" instead of "b2" and
"threes" instead of "twos". Also its not clear how b3
is incremented in 7th sample.
Regds,
Swapnajit
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Aug 28 17:50:38 2008