RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot due Monday, Feb 18, 8AM PST

Hi Brad, 

We should discuss this in the next SV-BC meeting and either promote the wording of "warnings" to "errors" or the other way around.  For now, let's just note this as an issue to be discussed and leave it as a friendly amendment.  

My take on this is we promote this to "error" simply because we are now removing our glitching problem.  I may be a little naïve as there may be other false glitch scenarios that I am missing, in which case I would not feel as strongly about this but it would depend on how rare they are.

I tend to believe, as most experienced designers do, that warnings are generally ignored. And the nature of the violations check is a pretty important one. 

Thanks for noting this issue,
-Tom 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
>Behalf Of Brad Pierce
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:08 PM
>To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
>Subject: Re: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot due Monday, Feb 18, 8AM PST
>
>Tom,
>
>In the proposed new text of 2008, 'error' is mentioned many times, e.g.,
>
>   "no error will be reported"
>
>   "violation checks shall be immune to false errors"
>
>Yet the examples talk about "a warning" and the new text also refers to
>"a tool-specific warning mechanism".
>
>Are errors required when a violation report matures?  If not, I don't
>think the new proposed new text should use the word 'error'.
>
>-- Brad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>Alsop, Thomas R
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:12 AM
>To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot due Monday, Feb 18, 8AM PST
>
>Yes on 1828 with the friendly amendment that we change "should" to
>"shall".  "Should" is still a recommendation, albeit stronger that
>"can".  "shall" requires implementations to issue these warnings.  My
>only hesitation would be the forced requirement on _all_
>implementations.  I am not sure that simulation tools care about this as
>much as synthesis implementations so I'll let the software folks make
>that judgment call. IMHO, I would personally like even simulation tools
>to make this check if they are not already doing so and issue the
>warning.
>
>2008 - Yes
>
>2219 - Yes.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
>
>>Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:57 AM
>>To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
>>Subject: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot due Monday, Feb 18, 8AM PST
>>
>>
>>-You have until 8am PST, Monday, February 18, 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 February 4, 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 1828 ___Yes   ___No
>>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1828
>>
>>SVDB 2008 ___Yes   ___No
>>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008
>>
>>SVDB 2219 ___Yes   ___No
>>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2219
>>
>>--
>>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.
>
>
>
>--
>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.