[sv-ac] RE: 1729 proposal suggestions

Hi Lisa,
 
Did I take care of thses concernes in the fix that I did following
Bassam's email?
 
ed


________________________________

	From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:49 PM
	To: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: RE: 1729 proposal suggestions
	
	

	Hi Ed,

	 

	I guess I did not realize that the vpi's distinguish between
immediate's and concurrent's.  I thought if the user is analyzing
cover's for example, that there would not be a need to differentiate. 

	 

	I have looked more with this realization and in 28.2.2, there is
a need to define:  ImmediateCover and ImmediateAssume

	 

	Also, in 28.2, example "d" just above, you might want to clarify
that this is showing "concurrent" cover assertions, not all cover
assertions.

	 

	Lisa

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:09 PM
	To: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: RE: 1729 proposal suggestions

	 

	Hi Lisa et al,

	 

	Please find attached and uploaded a modified proposal for 1729.
The change consists of coloring the text, hopefully in the appropriate
way (although I am not that sure).

	 

	ed

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
		Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:30 PM
		To: Eduard Cerny
		Subject: RE: 1729 proposal suggestions

		Hi Ed,

		 

		I have to apologize. I missed seeing this in my email.
It looks good to me!  Thanks very much.  The only thing I don't see is
the color coding for new text.

		 

		Lisa

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
		Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:36 AM
		To: Lisa Piper; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com
		Subject: RE: 1729 proposal suggestions

		 

		Hello Lisa,

		 

		I tried to take into account your suggestions. Please
have a look if you agree with the changes. There is still the question
about vpi, I thought that we could just leave it as part of assertions
in general, i.e., I just removed the word "concurrent" in Annex I. Or
did I miss something more?

		Let me know whether you agree with the proposal now in
which case I'd deposit it on Mantis.

		 

		Best regards,

		ed

			 

			
________________________________


			From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
			Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:09 PM
			To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
			Subject: 1729 proposal suggestions

			Hi Ed,

			 

			My feedback is attached. It is all word-smithing
primarily, except the question of whether an attempt counter is desired
for an immediate cover and whether there might be an impact on VPI's
from chapter 29.  I think anything in chapter 29 that would apply to a
concurrent assertion would also apply to an immediate assertion.  I
don't know if we need to be explicit about that or not.

			 

			lisa


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.