RE: [sv-ec] 9.4.2 example

No, it was not a ballot comment. I will put it into a Mantis item.

Shalom

________________________________
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:52 PM
To: Arturo Salz; Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.