Re: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3

Hi Shalom,

It appears that the number of changes being made to the
proposal has gone beyond what was requested by the Champions.
Is it fair to say that these changes are due to the merge?
At any rate, this round of changes will need to be reviewed
and approved by the sv-bc and then sent back to the Champions.

Neil




Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> One by one:
> 
>     12.4.2 – Is this “expressions” or “conditions”?  Seems like the
>     expressions are being evaluated.  If so, no change needed to your doc.
> 
>     /Unique-if /and /unique0-if /assert that there is no overlap in a
>     series of if–else–if conditions, i.e., they are mutually exclusive
>     and hence it is safe for the expressions conditions to be evaluated
>     in parallel.
>     [SB] Good catch. 12.4 uses 'expression', 12.4.1 uses both
>     'expression' and 'condition', but 12.4.2 uses 'condition'
>     consistently, so I will change it here also. 
> 
>      
> 
>     You also completely struck this out with no replacement.
> 
>      
> 
>     For unique-if and unique0-if, an implementation shall also issue a
>     warning if it determines that no condition is true, or it is
>     possible that no condition is true, and the final *if *does not have
>     a corresponding *else*. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not
>     issue a warning if it determines that no condition is true.
> 
>      
> 
>     It should be replaced with:
> 
>     For unique-if, an implementation shall also issue a violation report
>     if it determines that no condition is true, or it is possible that
>     no condition is true, and the final *if *does not have a
>     corresponding *else*. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not
>     issue a violation report if it determines that no condition is true.
>     [SB] I had deleted this as redundant. The text earlier says, "If the
>     keywords *unique *or *priority *are used,  a /violation/ /report/
>     shall be issued if no condition matches unless there is an explicit
>     *else* *... *If the keyword *unique0 *is used, there shall be no
>     violation if no condition is matched."
> 
>      
> 
>     12.5.3
> 
>      
> 
>     4^th paragraph, 1^st sentence: You have
> 
>     If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
>     implementation shall issue a warning message if no /case_item /matches
> 
>      
> 
>     Should be:
> 
>     If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
>     implementation shall issue a  warning  message violation report if
>     no /case_item /matches
>     [SB] Yes, thanks. 
> 
>      
> 
>     4^th paragraph, 2nd sentence: You struck out this sentence.  I don’t
>     believe this should be removed. Only the third sentence should be
>     removed.
> 
>     If the case is qualified as unique0, the implementation shall not
>     issue a violation report if no /case_item /matches.
>     [SB] It was moved to be the last sentence in the paragraph, as in
>     the proposal for 2131 and as in your original proposal. 
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
>     Just before examples:
> 
>      
> 
>     NOTE—By specifying *unique *or *priority*, it is not necessary to
>     code a *default *case to trap unexpected case values
> 
>      
> 
>     Should be:
> 
>      
> 
>     NOTE—By specifying *unique, unique0, *or *priority*, it is not
>     necessary to code a *default *case to trap unexpected case values
>     [SB] unique0 does not trap unexpected case values. 
> 
>      
> 
>     So I will make two changes above in my proposal and post it shortly
>     on Mantis.
> 
>      
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Shalom
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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* <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.