RE: synchronous abort operator

Andrew,
 
Speaking as chair of the Extensions SC: In the Extensions SC meeting today, we agreed that addition of a synchronous abort capability is worth pursuing, but that it would be deferred for now and will not make it into the June 2005 release. So the abort issue will be maintained in the Issues List for later discussion, and your comments will be noted in that context.
 
Speaking as myself (so that in the future, the above comments will not be misconstrued as reflecting my personal opinion): I agree completely that there is a much greater need for synchronous abort than for asynchronous abort, and I would prefer to see this in the language now. Nonetheless, I've agreed (reluctantly) to accept the status quo for now, in the interest of meeting our short-term goals.
 
Regards,
 
Erich

________________________________

        From: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seawright, Andrew
        Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:27 PM
        To: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
        Subject: synchronous abort operator
        
        
        I would like to see a synchronous abort operator in PSL. If we must have an async
        abort operator semantics, then I would be in favor of another operator or way
        to denote a synchronous abort.
         
        For applications where the PSL assertions are clocked, most "disable"
        applications can be stated in synchronously. If the abort is synchronous,
        then the tools have more flexibility in terms of implementation and optimization.
         
        Andrew
          
         
         
Received on Tue Jan 11 11:39:13 2005