[sv-ec] Re: [sv-ac] RE: Review of BNF and Keywords by Dan Jacobi

Subject: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-ac] RE: Review of BNF and Keywords by Dan Jacobi
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 12:50:42 PDT

• Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "[sv-ec] Review of Draft 4 - sections 1, 14, 15 and some other miscellaneous"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] FW: [sv-bc] Comments review on Chapter 12"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Faisal;

>Adam this is a great idea. But I don't think it can be added in this rev
>of the LRM. Probably better to defer it SV3.2

Aside from this, what was the resolution of assertions in functions?
This issue has repeatedly been raised, with no clear idea of whether they
are supported or not.

If we are allowing functions to contains assertions, through our prior work,
then the BNF needs to reflect this decision.

If it is to be pushed the SV 3.2, then I would recommend that this issue
and be handled by SV-EC.

      Adam Krolnik
      Verification Mgr.
      LSI Logic Corp.
      Plano TX. 75074

• Next message: Clifford E. Cummings: "[sv-ec] Review of Draft 4 - sections 1, 14, 15 and some other miscellaneous"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] FW: [sv-bc] Comments review on Chapter 12"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 12:52:05 PDT