erich,
ok, you've done the research, so i can't argue with the history. perhaps
what i was remembering as the mandate to make aborts asynchronous came from
the alignment sub-committee. in any case, i completely agree with johan,
who said:
>However, introduction of a abort_synch operator with synchronous
>semantics doesn't bring up either of problems 1, 2 or 3, so such a
>change would carry much less cost. Still we need to ask ourselves
>whether this is what we should put our scant first iteration resourses
>on.
thus, i am for either leaving things as they are, or introducing a new
synchronous abort operator.
regards,
cindy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Eisner
Formal Methods Group
IBM Haifa Research Laboratory
Haifa 31905, Israel
Tel: +972-4-8296-266
Fax: +972-4-8296-114
e-mail: eisner@il.ibm.com
"Erich Marschner" <erichm@cadence.com>@eda.org on 16/12/2004 19:34:20
Sent by: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
To: Cindy Eisner/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc: Johan Mårtensson <johan.martensson@safelogic.se>,
<ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org>, <bassam@novas.com>,
<dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il>
Subject: RE: Group A - first draft LRM changes
Hi Cindy,
Ii apologize for dragging this out further, but I'd really like to
understand when and why the decision was made to make abort asynchronous.
I've just gone back and looked at the requirements, and I see no
requirement for an asynchronous abort.
The first set of requirements were captured in a spreadsheet that is still
visible by following the "Requirements" link from the FVTC web page (
http://www.eda.org/vfv), or by going directly to
http://www.eda.org/vfv/requirements.htm.
Note requirement 33, which says "Allow Asynchronous modeling/properties".
I believe this is the only reference to asynchronous behavior in that list.
The second, more detailed set of possible requirements was captured in a
PDF document that was drafted in late 2001. The individual requirements
were balloted in October 2001, and the results were reported by Harry in an
email entitled "VFV Committee Final Requirements", dated Sunday Nov 4 2001,
which can be found in the FVTC mail archive at
http://www.eda.org/vfv/hm/0440.html
.
I cannot locate any occurrence of 'asynchronous' (or 'asynch') in this set
of requirements.
I also scanned my local copies of FVTC email for 'asynch', from November
2001 to November 2003. I found no discussion of making abort asynchronous.
I did find the following text in an early draft of the LRM section on
Property Declaration (8/25/02, written by me):
This property could also be declared as follows:
property ResultAfterN (boolean start, stop; property result; const n) =
always ((start -> next[n] (result)) @ (posedge clk) abort stop);
The two declarations have slightly different interfaces (i.e., different
formal
parameter orders), but they both declare the same property
ResultAfterN. This
property describes behavior in which a specified result (a property)
occurs N
cycles after an enabling condition (parameter 'start') occurs, with
cycles defined
by rising edges of signal 'clk', unless an (asynchronous) abort condition
(parameter 'stop') occurs.
This example and its explanation suggest that at the time, I/we understood
that putting the 'abort' condition outside the scope of the clock
expression would make the abort asynchronous. (By the way, this text is
still in the PSL v1.1 LRM, on page 82, including the "(asynchronous)"
qualifier.)
I finally found a reference to a change in the semantics of abort in my
archive of email related to drafting the initial LRM. An email from Dana
(dated 1/26/03) appears to represent the point at which the change
occurred. Here is the main text of that message:
Attached is the latest formal semantics document (dated January 23),
reflecting
the corrections of the typos pointed out by Mike.
The changes compared to the December 10 version are:
1. Rewrite rule for r@c: changed r1 to r and added curly brackets
around "c1:\T^c1{r}"
2. Definition of clocked semantics for Boolean: replaced w by
\ell^0
3. Definition of clocked semantics for r@c1: replaced
w^{0,i}|={!c1[*];c1} by w^{0,i}|=(T) {!c1[*];c1}
(that is added context \true to the |= symbols)
4. Definition of clocked semantics for f@c1: replaced
w^{0,i}|={!c1[*];c1} by w^{0,i}|=(T) {!c1[*];c1}
(that is added context \true to the |= symbols)
5. Definition of clocked semantics for f abort b : replaced
w^i|= c/\ b by w^i |=(T) c /\ b
(that is added context \true to the |= symbols)
The motto of changes 3-5 is that clocked semantics relies only on clocked
semantics
and Boolean unlocked semantics and does not rely on unclocked semantics
for SEREs or
formulas. Thus whenever we used |= with out a context in the unclocked
semantics, I
changed it to |=(T) if the left hand side of |= is a word and left it
with no context
if the left hand side is a letter.
Item 5 above shows that the original semantics (in which the abort
condition was sensitive to the clock) were changed so that the abort
condition would no longer be sensitive to the clock. The subsequent
paragraph seems to say that the change was made to be consistent with a
general pattern of semantic definition, NOT that it was done specifically
to support modeling of asynchronous reset.
I should note that there was also the issue about the definition of abort
that Moshe Vardi raised. This is mentioned in an email from Cindy on
11/26/02:
2. as pointed out by moshe vardi et al in
www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/misc/abortreset.pdf,
the complexity of the abort operator is problematical. we plan on
addressing this issue
by modifying the semantics of abort to what vardi et all term "reset
semantics". thus, in
the semantics presented above the formula ((eventually! false) abort b)
must fail in all
designs, while in version 1.1, we plan on allowing this formula to pass
in if 'b' is
asserted. from the user's point of view, this will have minimal effect,
since it is a
corner case resulting from aborting a non-satisfiable formula. from a
tool builder's
point of view, this will have minimal effect since the change involves
removing one step
in the algorithm that builds the automaton for a given formula (the step
that removes
states from which there is no accepting run).
I am not aware that this issue dictated an asynchronous abort instead of an
abort that could be sensitive to the clock context, although I suppose
there might be a connection.
So for what it's worth, that's what I can find in the historical record. I
clearly missed the change of abort semantics in January 2003, and I've
misunderstood them since then. At this point, I still think that that
change was unnecessary and inappropriate, because it breaks the general
pattern of how we specify whether a property is synchronous (or not) by
applying a clock expression (or not).
Regards,
Erich
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Cindy Eisner [mailto:EISNER@il.ibm.com]
| Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:18 AM
| To: Erich Marschner
| Cc: Johan Mårtensson; ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org;
| bassam@novas.com; dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il
| Subject: RE: Group A - first draft LRM changes
|
|
|
|
|
| erich, johan, all,
|
| if i recall correctly, the decision to make abort
| asynchronous was one of the requirements drawn up by the
| committee. the idea, as johan has pointed out, is that you
| can always make the abort synchronous by "anding" the abort
| condition with the clock, but to do the opposite is difficult.
|
| if we are going to make a change, i would suggest replacing
| "abort" with "abort_async" and "abort_sync", which are
| respectively, an asynchronous abort and a synchronous one.
|
| cindy.
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cindy Eisner
| Formal Methods Group
| IBM Haifa Research Laboratory
| Haifa 31905, Israel
| Tel: +972-4-8296-266
| Fax: +972-4-8296-114
| e-mail: eisner@il.ibm.com
|
| "Erich Marschner" <erichm@cadence.com>@eda.org on 16/12/2004 00:09:53
|
| Sent by: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
|
|
| To: Johan Mårtensson <johan.martensson@safelogic.se>,
| <ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org>
| cc: <bassam@novas.com>, Cindy Eisner/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
| <dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il>
| Subject: RE: Group A - first draft LRM changes
|
|
| Johan,
|
| | This is certainly possible but if you wanted to express
| asynchronous
| | abort you would sometimes have to use fairly twisted syntax
| given this
| | "synchronous" definition.
|
| We have two choices. We can
|
| 1. make language forms sensitive to the clock context by
| default, and apply some transformation to shield them from it
| when we don't want the default behavior; or
|
| 2. make language forms insensitive to the clock context by
| default, and apply some transformation to make them sensitive
| to it when we don't want the default behavior.
|
| The first approach is what we do for sequences and for nearly
| all properties - they are sensitive to the clock context,
| unless we shield them from that context by clocking them with @True.
|
| The second approach is what apparently applies now to the
| abort condition.
| Unfortunately the transformation you have suggested ('and'ing
| the clock expression with the abort condition) doesn't work
| as well when the clock expression is something like @(posedge
| clk), which is not a Boolean and therefore cannot be 'and'ed
| with anything; in such a case the clock expression must be
| transformed itself into something else (e.g., rose(clk))
| before you can do this - so for example, you might end up writing
|
| always (a -> b)@(posedge clk) abort (c && rose(clk));
|
| This one turns out to be relatively simple, but what would
| you do if the clock expression above were @(x,y,z) instead of
| @(posedge clk)? I supposed you could write
|
| always (a -> b)@(x,y,z) abort (c && (rose(x) || fell(x)
| || rose(y) ||
| fell(y) || ...);
|
| but I don't think this is very readable.
|
| Of the two approaches, I view the second one as more
| 'twisted' than the first - and the fact that we are requiring
| users to understand and apply BOTH approaches is even worse.
| I would prefer to ask the user to understand and apply only
| the first approach.
|
|
| | > but by that argument we don't need clock expressions at
| all: every
| | > condition could be 'and'ed with the clock.
| |
| | This is not true, if I understand you correctly. Just to take the
| | simplest (of many possible) example.
| |
| | The formula a@c is not equivalent to a&c.
|
| Yes, you are right. I would say this is another reason for
| sticking to the one, simple mechanism of applying a clock
| context via the @ operator, rather than encouraging users to
| 'and' a clock condition with a Boolean under certain
| circumstances (but not others).
|
| Regards,
|
| Erich
|
|
| | -----Original Message-----
| | From: Johan Mårtensson [mailto:johan.martensson@safelogic.se]
| | Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:22 PM
| | To: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org; Erich Marschner
| | Cc: bassam@novas.com; Cindy Eisner; dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il
| | Subject: Re: Group A - first draft LRM changes
| |
| | Erich,
| |
| | I think you could achieve what you want not by clocking the boolean
| | semantic relation; It doesn't seem to make sense because
| this relation
| | relates single letters and booleans.
| | Instead you could certainly change the abort case of the definition
| | to.
| |
| | v|=(c) phi abort b <==> either v|=(c) phi or there exists
| j<|v| s.t.
| | v^j |= b&c and v^(0..j-1)T^(omega) |=(c) phi
| |
| | This is certainly possible but if you wanted to express
| asynchronous
| | abort you would sometimes have to use fairly twisted syntax
| given this
| | "synchronous" definition.
| |
| | I have a comment on what you write below.
| |
| | On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:22:21AM -0800, Erich Marschner wrote:
| |
| |
| | > Bassam,
| | >
| | > While I am admittedly myopic, I don't see a problem with
| | extending the
| | > formal definition to support synchronous abort. The current
| | > definition (in B.3.1.2.2, Semantics of clocked FL) is:
| | >
| | > v|=(c) phi abort b <==> either v|=(c) phi or there exists
| | j<|v| s.t.
| | > v^j |= b and v^(0..j-1)T^(omega) |=(c) phi
| | >
| | > I would think that we would only need to change
| | >
| | > v^j |= b
| | >
| | > to
| | >
| | > v^j |=(c) b
| | >
| | > to make the abort sensitive to the clock context. (Whether
| | this might
| | > create other issues within the formal semantics, I don't know.)
| | >
| | > Yes, you can get the same effect by 'tweaking' the abort
| | condition -
| | > e.g.,
| | >
| | > always (a -> b)@clk abort (c&&clk);
| | >
| | > but by that argument we don't need clock expressions at
| all: every
| | > condition could be 'and'ed with the clock.
| |
| | This is not true, if I understand you correctly. Just to take the
| | simplest (of many possible) example.
| |
| | The formula a@c is not equivalent to a&c.
| |
| | The first but not the second is true in the following situation
| |
| | a:001000
| | c:001000
| |
| | Best Regards, Johan M
| |
| | > The point of having a clock
| | > expression is to factor out the clock and make it easy to
| specify a
| | > synchronous property, so it is strange not to apply it
| consistently.
| | >
| | > I agree that if support for synchronous reset is important
| | enough for
| | > PSL to adopt, then it is also important enough for SVA to
| | adopt. The
| | > fact that you have already raised the same issue in the SVA
| | committee
| | > suggests that there is some reason to support this in both
| | languages.
| | >
| | > Regards,
| | >
| | > Erich
| | >
| | >
| | > | -----Original Message-----
| | > | From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:bassam@novas.com]
| | > | Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:25 PM
| | > | To: Erich Marschner; 'Johan Mårtensson'; 'Cindy Eisner';
| | > | dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il
| | > | Cc: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
| | > | Subject: RE: Group A - first draft LRM changes
| | > |
| | > | Erich,
| | > |
| | > | First off I agree with you about practicality, and the
| | fact that the
| | > | informal LRM description can be reasonably and easily
| | overloaded to
| | > | mean this (but not formal defs). I wanted to note 2 things here:
| | > |
| | > | 1) We also had a similar discussion in the context of SVA
| | recently
| | > | where I suggested this same "natural fix" to disable iff (but no
| | > | sale) and John pointed out the formal semantics of SVA
| | and alignment
| | > | to PSL's semantics (which Johan cites).
| | > | 2) Other users on SVA committee also pointed out that an
| | > | "asynchronous" is general enough, so by tweaking the
| | abort condition
| | > | to be synchronous you can get the synchronous overall
| | effect, albeit
| | > | it's not as easy/practical as the suggestion you make below.
| | > |
| | > | I'm not sure if "alignment" considerations are of utmost
| | importance
| | > | here necessarily, just a point of reference as it were if
| | it indeed
| | > | is something to keep in mind. It works both
| | > | ways: If the change is deemed worthwhile in PSL, SVA
| | should consider
| | > | this issue again in the future.
| | > |
| | > | Thx.
| | > | -Bassam.
| | > |
| | > | --
| | > | Dr. Bassam Tabbara
| | > | Architect, R&D
| | > | Novas Software, Inc.
| | > | (408) 467-7893
| | > |
| | > | -----Original Message-----
| | > | From: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
| | > | [mailto:owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Erich
| | > | Marschner
| | > | Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 8:37 AM
| | > | To: Johan Mårtensson; Cindy Eisner; dana.fisman@weizmann.ac.il
| | > | Cc: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
| | > | Subject: RE: Group A - first draft LRM changes
| | > |
| | > | Johan,
| | > |
| | > | Again, I'm not sure I follow your example (did you mean
| a abort b
| | > | instead of b abort a?), but in any case I see now that both the
| | > | clock rewrite rules and the formal semantic definition in
| | B.3.1.2.2
| | > | reflect your statement that the abort condition is not
| | affected by
| | > | the clock context.
| | > |
| | > | I believe this is a problem, from a practical point of view.
| | > | The abort clause is the natural way to represent interrupts and
| | > | reset operations, and these can be both synchronous or
| | asynchronous.
| | > | PSL should allow the user to control whether the abort
| condition
| | > | represents a synchronous or an asynchronous event, and
| | the way to do
| | > | that is to allow the user to clock it or not, as
| | appropriate. Thus
| | > | if I write
| | > |
| | > | always (a -> b abort c)@clk
| | > |
| | > | I would expect the abort condition to be synchronous;
| | whereas if I
| | > | write
| | > |
| | > | always (a -> b)@clk abort c
| | > |
| | > | I would expect the abort condition to be asynchronous.
| | > |
| | > | I see that there may be some issues with nested aborts,
| | or equally
| | > | with top-level aborts in the context of a default clock
| | declaration,
| | > | because (if abort were defined such that it is affected
| | by the clock
| | > | context) it seems difficult to protect the abort
| | condition from the
| | > | influence of an outer clock (e.g., to define an
| | asynchronous abort
| | > | within a synchronous context) without changing the abort
| | condition
| | > | to a property, which is not allowed.
| | > | For example, assuming that abort is affected by the clock
| | context,
| | > | then
| | > |
| | > | default clock = clk2
| | > |
| | > | always (a -> b)@clk abort c -- abort would be
| | > | synchronous w.r.t.
| | > | clk2
| | > | always (a -> b)@clk abort c@True -- illegal because
| | > | abort requires a
| | > | Boolean
| | > |
| | > | But we could still write
| | > |
| | > | always ((a -> b)@clk abort c)@True -- True hides clk2
| | > | for the entire
| | > | property
| | > |
| | > | so this shouldn't be an issue.
| | > |
| | > | It would seem to be straightforward to define abort in
| such a way
| | > | that the clock context applies to the abort condition as
| | well as to
| | > | the property.
| | > | Cindy, Dana, can either of you comment on why this wasn't done?
| | > |
| | > | Regards,
| | > |
| | > | Erich
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| | > | | -----Original Message-----
| | > | | From: Johan Mårtensson [mailto:johan.martensson@safelogic.se]
| | > | | Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:51 AM
| | > | | To: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org; Erich Marschner
| | > | | Subject: Re: Group A - first draft LRM changes
| | > | |
| | > | | Erich,
| | > | |
| | > | | in fact nested aborts are asyncronous with resepect to
| | the clock
| | > | | in the environment. The simplest way to see this is in the
| | > | case for abort
| | > | | in the clock rewriting rules (B.5):
| | > | |
| | > | | F^c(phi abort b) ==> F^c(phi) abort b
| | > | |
| | > | | which means that the abort condition b is left entirely
| | > | untouched by
| | > | | the clock rewriting and will thus abort on the first
| | > | occurrence of b,
| | > | | whether or not it occurs on a clock instance.
| | > | |
| | > | | We can also go through a simple example using the formal
| | > | semantics for
| | > | | clocked FL (B.3.1.2.2) directly
| | > | |
| | > | | Let v be a word with the following truth values for a, b and c
| | > | |
| | > | | t: 0123456....
| | > | | a: 0100000....
| | > | | b: 0000000....
| | > | | c: 0010010....
| | > | |
| | > | | let v|c be the word containing only those letters of v
| | > | where c is true
| | > | |
| | > | | t: 25....
| | > | | a: 00....
| | > | | b: 00....
| | > | | c: 11....
| | > | |
| | > | |
| | > | | I will use the following symbolism (a_1,...a_n) is a letter
| | > | | (state) in which signals a_1,..,a_n and no others are
| true and
| | > | | <l_0,l_1,....> is a word defined by letters l_1,l_2,...
| | > | |
| | > | | Thus v above can be defined as <(),(a),(c),(),(),...>
| | if a, b and
| | > | | c are the only signals, and v|c as <(c),(c),(c),...>
| | > | |
| | > | | It is easy to see using the definition in B.3.1.2.2 that
| | > | |
| | > | | v|= (b abort a)@c
| | > | |
| | > | | but
| | > | |
| | > | | not v|c |= b abort a
| | > | |
| | > | | Best Regards, Johan M
| | > | |
| | > | |
| | > | |
| | > | | On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:22:49AM -0800, Erich
| Marschner wrote:
| | > | | > Johan,
| | > | | >
| | > | | > I don't follow this part of your comment:
| | > | | >
| | > | | > | ((always a) abort b)@c is true in the following situation
| | > | | (because
| | > | | > | it is equivalent to (always a)@c abort b.)
| | > | | >
| | > | | > I would think that the @c would apply to "abort b" as well
| | > | | as to (always a), so I wouldn't expect ((always a)
| | abort b)@c to
| | > | | be equivalent to ((always a)@c abort b).
| | > | | >
| | > | | > Can you explain why this equivalence should hold?
| | > | | >
| | > | | > Regards,
| | > | | >
| | > | | > Erich
| | > | | >
| | > | | >
| | > | | > | -----Original Message-----
| | > | | > | From: Johan Mårtensson
| | [mailto:johan.martensson@safelogic.se]
| | > | | > | Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:33 AM
| | > | | > | To: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org; Erich Marschner
| | > | | > | Subject: Re: Group A - first draft LRM changes
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | Hi Erich,
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | I have a comment below on your
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | > 4. Correct the informal semantics of '@' to allow for a
| | > | | > | nested subelement that has a different clock context.
| | > | | > | >
| | > | | > | > - in Clause 6.1.2.5, Clocked SERE, change the informal
| | > | | > | semantics to read
| | > | | > | > as follows: "For unclocked SERE A and Boolean
| CLK: A@CLK
| | > | | > | holds tightly
| | > | | > | > on a given path iff CLK holds in the last cycle of the
| | > | | > | given path, and
| | > | | > | > A holds tightly on the path obtained by extracting the
| | > | | > | from the given
| | > | | > | > path exactly those cycles in which CLK holds, and any
| | > | | subordinate
| | > | | > | > sequences of A hold tightly as specified by A on the
| | > | | corresponding
| | > | | > | > sub-paths of the given path."
| | > | | > | >
| | > | | > | > - in clause 6.2.1.2, Clocked FL properties, change
| | > | the informal
| | > | | > | > semantics to read as follows: "For unclocked
| FL property
| | > | | > | A and Boolean
| | > | | > | > CLK: A@CLK holds on a given path iff A holds
| on the path
| | > | | > | obtained by
| | > | | > | > extracting from the given path exactly those cycles
| | > | | in which CLK
| | > | | > | > holds, and any subordinate properties of A hold as
| | > | | > | specified by A at
| | > | | > | > the corresponding cycles of the given path."
| | > | | > | >
| | > | | > | > [Note: I'm not happy with this yet, but this is the
| | > | | best I've been
| | > | | > | > able to do so far.]
| | > | | > | >
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | Note that there is not only a problem with nested clocked
| | > | | > | subproperties here. Also nested aborts break the clock
| | > | projection
| | > | | > | hypothesis. For instance the property
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | ((always a) abort b)@c is true in the following situation
| | > | | (because
| | > | | > | it is equivalent to (always a)@c abort b.)
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | c:0101010...
| | > | | > | a:0100000...
| | > | | > | b:0010000...
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | whereas
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | ((always a) abort b) is not true in
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | a:100...
| | > | | > | b:000...
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | which is the path obtained when extracting from the given
| | > | | path those
| | > | | > | cycles in which c holds.
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | It seems this problem with abort and clock projection is
| | > | | not noted
| | > | | > | in the current informal semantics in 6.2.1.2 either.
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | Best Regards, Johan M.
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > | --
| | > | | > |
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| | > | | > | Johan Martensson, PhD Office: +46 31 7451913
|
| | > | | > | R&D Mobile: +46 703749681
| | > | | > | Safelogic AB Fax: +46 31 7451939
| | > | | > | Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4
| | johan.martensson@safelogic.se
| | > | | > | SE-411 33 Gothenburg, SWEDEN PGP key ID A8857A60
| | > | | > | www.safelogic.se
| | > | | > |
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > |
| | > | | > |
| | > | |
| | > | | --
| | > | | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | > | | Johan Martensson, PhD Office: +46 31 7451913
|
| | > | | R&D Mobile: +46 703749681
| | > | | Safelogic AB Fax: +46 31 7451939
| | > | | Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 johan.martensson@safelogic.se
| | > | | SE-411 33 Gothenburg, SWEDEN
| | > | | PGP key ID A8857A60
| | > | | www.safelogic.se
| | > | | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | > | |
| | > | |
| | > | |
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| |
| | --
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | Johan Martensson, PhD Office: +46 31 7451913
| | R&D Mobile: +46 703749681
| | Safelogic AB Fax: +46 31 7451939
| | Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 johan.martensson@safelogic.se
| | SE-411 33 Gothenburg, SWEDEN
| | PGP key ID A8857A60
| | www.safelogic.se
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Received on Sun Dec 19 03:30:30 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 19 2004 - 03:30:33 PST