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

Hi Francoise,

The word "shall" is most appropriate.

   Automatic truncation from a larger number of bits to a smaller
   number of bits shall cause a warning to be issued.

Neil

Francoise Martinolle wrote:
>
> 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"
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-720-4852
Member of Technical Staff                         Fax: 408-720-4850
Frontend Technologies - ASICs & Processors (FTAP)
Sun Microsystems
email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------