[sv-ec] RE: Mantis 2506

Version 9 was up for a Champions vote. I saw one vote for approval. I did not see other Champions' votes.

Regards,
Shalom

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Little Scott-B11206
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: SV_EC List
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: Mantis 2506

Hi Shalom:

Thanks for the reminder. A few questions about the status of the mantis. I presume it was up for review in a recent Champions' vote? If that is correct, is there other feedback coming from the Champions? Or is this feedback prior to a vote by the full Champions committee?

Thanks again,
Scott

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:48 AM
To: Little Scott-B11206; SV_EC List
Subject: RE: Mantis 2506

The text regarding, "An implementation shall issue a warning under the following conditions" and other text that references type(e) still needs to be resolved.

Shalom

From: Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:01 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; SV_EC List
Subject: RE: Mantis 2506

Updated as suggested (_v12).

Thanks,
Scott

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:55 AM
To: SV_EC List
Subject: [sv-ec] Mantis 2506

Editorial comment:

The current LRM has this structure:

19.6 Defining cross coverage
19.6.1 Example of user-defined cross coverage and select expressions
19.6.2 Excluding cross products
19.6.3 Specifying Illegal cross products

The proposal would make this structure:

19.6 Defining cross coverage
19.6.1 Defining cross coverage bins
        19.6.1.1 Cross bin with covergroup expressions
        19.6.1.2 Cross bin automatically-defined types
        19.6.1.3 Cross bin set expression
19.6.2 Example of user-defined cross coverage and select expressions
19.6.3 Excluding cross products
19.6.4 Specifying Illegal cross products

The original structure discusses basic cross coverage in 19.6 and then gives an example in 19.6.1.

The new structure discusses basic cross coverage in 19.6 and 19.6.1, then discusses more sophisticated cross bins in 19.6.1.1-19.6.1.3, including examples, then goes back to a simple example in 19.6.2.

That does not make sense.

I think the original example from the current 19.6.1 should precede the discussion of the new cross bin features in 19.6.1.1. To do this, you could turn 19.6.1 into 19.6.1.1 instead of 19.6.2, and start numbering the new text as 19.6.1.2. 'Excluding cross products' would then by chance remain as 19.6.2.

Regards,
Shalom

Shalom Bresticker
Intel LAD DA, Jerusalem, Israel
+972 2 589 6582 (office)
+972 54 721 1033 (cell)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/shalombresticker

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.