RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

Was this a ballot comment? otherwise it will have to wait for 201X

 

________________________________

From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:24 AM
To: Rich, Dave; Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

 

Daniel's proposal is correct. We should change the example as he
suggests - however, his change involves not just one but two lines (the
ones highlighted in blue):

 

Packet p = new; // Packet 1

Packet q = new; // Packet 2

initial fork

   @(p.status);   // Wait for status in Packet 1 to change

   @ p;           // Wait for a change to handle p

   # 10 p = q;    // triggers @p.

   // @(p.status) now waits for status in Packet 2 to change,

   // if not already different from Packet 1

join

 

            Arturo

 

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:38 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

 

Oh, you're right, the p's and q's are reversed on that line and the one
above in the LRM. The example below is what you want to change it to.

 

________________________________

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:03 AM
To: Rich, Dave
Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

 

#10 p=q ;

 

is the line that Daniel suggests to add to the LRM. It is not there now.

 

Shalom

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:00 PM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:19 AM
	To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Subject: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

	 

	Hi,

	 

	Daniel Mlynek wrote in
http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/6589.html:

	 

	Anyway the main problem is that I think the example in 9.4.2
Event control is wrong. 

	Comments says:  "// @(p.status) now waits for status in Packet 2
to change, if not already different from Packet 1"  

	but p is not changed in the example at all. 

	[DR] #10 p=q; is the change to p. q is pointing to pPacket 2

	If it would be assigned with handle pointing on object "Packet
1" then example would be ok. 

	My proposal is to change :

	 

	Packet p = new; // Packet 1

	Packet q = new; // Packet 2

	initial fork

	        @(p.status); // Wait for status in Packet 1 to change

	        @p;          // Wait for a change to handle p

	        #10 p = q;  // triggers @p. 

	        // @(p.status) now waits for status in Packet 2 to
change,

	        // if not already different from Packet 1

	join

	 

	I think Daniel is correct, that the comment looks wrong.

	 

	Editorially, this example seems to be referring to the
definition of Packet in 8.2. 

	Otherwise, who knows what "status" is?

	If so, the text should refer the reader to 8.2.

	 

	Thanks,

	Shalom

	 

	Shalom Bresticker

	Intel LAD DA

	Jerusalem, Israel

	+972  2 589 6582 (office)

	+972 54 721 1033 (cell)

	 

	 

	
---------------------------------------------------------------------
	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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 


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