[sv-ac] RE: 1729 proposal suggestions

Hi Lisa,
 
I modifed the proposal according to your suggestion. Hope it is now OK.
 
Best regards,
ed
 
PS I will also deposit on Mantis.


________________________________

	From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:51 PM
	To: Eduard Cerny
	Subject: RE: 1729 proposal suggestions
	
	

	Hi Ed,

	 

	I don't think so.  My re-review was prompted by Bassam's email
but I don't think the proposal has anything on section 28 in it at the
moment.

	 

	Lisa

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:10 PM
	To: Lisa Piper; Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
	Subject: 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.