RE: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot: Respond by Sun Sep 16 8am PDT

Yes I just started responding to this and I agree with you 100%.  Can we
word this like what you have instead? That makes a lot more sense to me.


-Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom 
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:40 AM
To: Alsop, Thomas R
Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot: Respond by Sun Sep 16 8am PDT

The 'called function' wording comes from the 3rd bullet in 9.2.2.2.

But I agree that any differences in wording become confusing, though I
don't like 'semantically identical' either. I would propose to say
something like that always_latch and always_comb are identical, except
that the one expresses combinational intent and tools may warn if the
logic is not such, and the other expresses latch intent, etc.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alsop, Thomas R 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:32 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org'
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot: Respond by Sun Sep 16 8am PDT
> 
> Shalom, 
> 
> I see your point.  Okay then why don't we say they are 
> "semantically identical" or whatever nomenclature is needed 
> to say that they are identical instead of the extra wording?  
> When I read what was added it only confused me because of 
> what I just read in the always_comb clause. It makes it seem 
> like we are putting an exception after the "executes 
> identically" statement.  
> 
> I also want to point out that we are adding the "called 
> function" wording exclusively to the always_latch clause and 
> not to the always_comb clause which again makes me think 
> there really is something different. 
> 
> -Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:35 AM
> To: Alsop, Thomas R
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot: Respond by Sun Sep 16 8am PDT
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I don't think that 'executes identically' is the same.
> 
> For me, that phrase means 'executes at the same time and in 
> the same way'.
> 
> It does not necessarily mean that they have the same 
> restrictions on what can appear on the right-hand and 
> left-hand sides, for example. That is not part of the 
> execution semantics.
> 
> It certainly was not clear to Doug Warmke in 
> http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/1878.html .
> 
> Shalom 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:22 AM
> > To: Alsop, Thomas R
> > Cc: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
> > Subject: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot: Respond by Sun Sep 16 8am PDT
> > 
> > I think you meant 1468.
> > 1473 is the 1step issue.
> > 
> > Shalom
> > 
> > > Yes on everything but 1473.  See comments below. Thanks, -Tom
> > > 
> > 
> > > SVDB 1468 _X_Yes   ___No  
> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1468
> > > 
> > > SVDB 1473 ___Yes   _X_No  
> > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1468
> > > talsop - I don't see any difference in the new comments from the 
> > > comment that the always_latch "executes identically" to the 
> > > always_latch.  In the always_comb clause is states "The variables 
> > > written on the left-hand side of assignments shall not be
> > written to
> > > by any other process." And yet we are adding this _and_
> > including the
> > > statement "from the contents of all called function".  
> > Isn't this true
> > > for always_comb too?  From the emails threads this appears to be 
> > > legacy comments.  I think "executes identically" is good enough.
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> > 
> 

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