Subject: RE: Follow-up from meeting
From: John Emmitt (johne@verplex.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 13:19:20 PST
HI Tom,
I think what you are saying below is consistent with what our approach and
vision has been wrt the assertion and OVL committee(s). That being said, I
still think there will naturally be some overlap between the capabilities
of the assertion construct and the formal language that the VFV grp is
working on. The question is how to define the line of "simple" for the
assertion construct. I think we are on the right track with incorporating a
basic sequential event expression requirement.
Regards,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Anderson [SMTP:tla@0-in.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:11 PM
To: Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com; assertion@eda.org; fitz@co-design.com;
tla@0-in.com
Subject: RE: Follow-up from meeting
Thanks for the comments, Vassilios. Bringing up the formal group is
is important since we really shouldn't need to have two independent
efforts within Accellera to define temporal constructs. One possible
future vision is that people capture basic assertions with a simple
(System) Verilog assertion construct, use OVL for canned assertions
and use whatever language the formal group chooses for their complex
temporal assertions.
Tom A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 13:20:08 PST