[sv-bc] RE: Friendly amendment wording for 109

 
Adam,
I believe you are correct. we need to be more specific shall or could
need to be used in place of does.

My guess is that it should be shall.

Can someone confirm?

Francoise
    '
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Krolnik [mailto:krolnik@lsil.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:13 AM
To: Francoise Martinolle; Adam C Krolnik
Subject: Re: Friendly amendment wording for 109

Hello Francoise;

YOu wrote:

> Friendly amendment wording for 109:
>REPLACE:
> Automatic truncation from a larger number of bits to a smaller number
does >cause a warning message.
>WITH
>Automatic truncation from a larger number of bits to a smaller number >
of bits does cause a warning message.
>^^^^^^^^

Is it required for P1800 to use shall, and could for required and optional
statements?

E.g.

Automatic truncation from a larger number of bits to a smaller number of
bits shall produce a warning message.

     THanks.

    Adam Krolnik
    Verification Mgr.
    LSI Logic Corp.
    Plano TX. 75074
    Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"
Received on Thu Nov 18 18:05:23 2004