Subject: RE: Follow-up from meeting
From: Sean Dart (sdart@ForteDS.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 12:44:48 PST
Tom,
My two cents worth. I think that it is definitely worth looking at
the Formal assertion effort when considering the simulation based assertion
requirements, but that it is dangerous to believe that the formal solution
will be even close to adequately addressing the needs of the
simulation-based flow. The inverse is also true, of course. There are
significantly differing requirements in the two worlds, with some overlap.
It is important not to be seduced by the overlap.
Sean
________________________________________________________________
Sean Dart Vice President of Engineering
FORTE Design Systems Tel: (425)869-4227 x127
14715 NE 95th Street Fax: (425)869-4229
Redmond, WA 98052 email: sdart@ForteDS.com
WEB: http://www.ForteDS.com
________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Anderson [mailto:tla@0-in.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:11 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 - 14:48:36 PST