Dear group, Here is a summary regarding backward compatibility with the previous LRM. Incompatibility in constructs that were well defined in the previous LRM: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The keyword "override" has been added, and its use is mandatory when one wants to change the behavior of a signal. - The formal semantics of structural contradiction was changed. For example in the previous LRM a trace with infinite number of b's would give different truth values to {b[*];false} and to { b[*]; { {a} && {a;a} } }. In the new LRM this bug was fixed such that the same truth value will be given to both. The incompatibility here is more theoretical than practical, because many tools probably already support the newer definition, as it is the more natural one to implement. Other well defined constructs remained unchanged. Changes in constructs whose definition was ambiguous in the previous LRM might have caused incompatibility if a company chose to implement another interpretation of the construct. These changes were necessary in order to have a unique interpretation in all the entities supporting the standard. The ambiguous definitions that changed and are now well defined: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The definition of inheritance and overriding (section 7.2) Regards, Sitvanit Sitvanit Ruah Formal Verification Group IBM Haifa Research Laboratory Tel: 972-4-828-1249 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jul 21 05:54:50 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 21 2009 - 05:54:58 PDT