RE: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

Hi Tom,

 

Now that I see the tide is widespread to break with back compatibility,

I withdraw my objection 4).  I also agree with Brad that we should get rid

of the old way all together, since it is not useful.  When such checks are

placed in clocked procedures (the only way they used to work reasonably),

then the behavior is identical in either #0 or throughout modes.

So there is no need to keep “throughout”.  You should be able to

considerably simplify your text sections now that you only have

one mode (deferred-assertion-like) to describe.

 

Also, I wouldn’t even object to removing #0 from the syntax at this point.

Though it provides an optional way for users to write code that draws attention

to the similarity with deferred assertions, I don’t think people will actually use it.

So why complicate things?

 

Thanks,

Doug

 

 

From: Alsop, Thomas R [mailto:thomas.r.alsop@intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:07 PM
To: Warmke, Doug; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

 

Hi Doug,

 

I have updated the proposal, now Rev3, addressing your concerns, all valid.  I appreciate your input.  Please take a look at the latest revision and give me your feedback.  

 

1.    I have removed event-control
2. I have updated the proposal to accurately state that this proposal fixes "zero-delay glitches in the active region set" for both the if and case descriptions.
3. I have changed all appropriate references to "checks" to "violation checks", which was all of them.
4. On this issue, designer input is that backward incompatibility is what we want.

 

Thanks, -Tom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Warmke, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:22 AM
To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

 

Hello all,

 

I vote No on Mantis 2008 for the following reasons:

 

1)      The related Mantis 2005 has been rewritten such that the event-control
form of the syntax is no longer present.  That had too many unresolved issues,

so SV-AC decided to postpone that enhancement until sometime in the future.

Thus, the event-control aspect of 2008 should be removed, too.

2)      The example in the unique/priority if area specifically mentions a 4 ns delay.
But that is not actually the case in the example.  Rather, this is an example
that is immune to zero-delay glitches in the active region set.  Note that 
evaluation of the unique-ness/priority-ness of the conditions is supposed

to happen in the Observed region, as per alignment with the deferred
assertion feature of Mantis 2005.  Thus, “zero-delay glitch” isn’t quite an

accurate term.  It should be “zero-delay glitch in the active region set”.

(Since oddball glitches caused by zero-delay oscillations across the

active and reactive region sets would still fire the violation checks)

3)      Speaking of “violation checks”, I would prefer it if 2008 caused that wording

to be used when describing unique/priority if/case.

4)      I’m not in favor of the compatibility break.  I think that the proposed default
behavior is too sophisticated to be allowed without the #0 syntactic clue.
It’s not hard to add those #0 into the source code, and it does give the
reader the clue that unique/priority violations will be checked with some
zero-delay semantic.  In addition, the current version of the construct can

work fine if placed in clocked procedures that include logic when assigning
the clocked output variables of the procedure.  (Thus, the current semantics

aren’t totally useless, though I do agree they are pretty useless for combinational

procedures)

 

I’d like to hear what others have to say about 4).

If there was enough weight in favor of making the compatibility break,

I will lift this particular objection, since I do think 2008 has a lot of value

and should be passed in this version of the standard.

 

Regards,

Doug

 

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:53 PM
To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] E-mail ballot: DUE 8am PST, Jan 21, 2008

 

 

-You have until 8am PST, Monday, January 21, 2008 to respond 
-An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible 
 voters respond with a YES vote. 
-If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason. 
 The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference call. 
-Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note 
       (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). 

As of the January 7, 2008 meeting, the eligible voters are: 

Brad Pierce        
Shalom Bresticker  
Cliff Cummings      
Mark Hartoog        
Francoise Martinolle 
Karen Pieper       
Dave Rich          
Steven Sharp       
Gordon Vreugdenhil 
Stu Sutherland 
Alex Gran 
Don Mills 
Heath Chambers 
Tom Alsop 
Doug Warmke 
Mike Burns 

SVDB 2008 ___Yes   ___No 
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008 <http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008>  

 


-- 
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 <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.