I have entered Mantis items -- 684: for vpiMultiConcat in 1800 -- 685: for vpiMultiConcat in 1364 -- 686: to clarify assertion "and" and "or" operators in VPI. Regards, Jim Vellenga --------------------------------------------------------- James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com 270 Billerica Rd Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 "We all work with partial information." ---------------------------------------------------------- ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam@novas.com] ] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:44 PM ] To: Jim Vellenga; Duncan, Ralph; SV-CC ] Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Proposal uploaded for 487 ] ] Hey Jim, some good catches here ... As we discussed before the aim ] should be to delete the notes, so no sense in "correcting" those of ] course, but yeah some things are missing see section (2) below. ] ] 1) No changes if notes deleted: ] vpiIfOp / vpiIfElseOp ---> should be (vpi_user.h) vpiIf and ] vpiIfElse so no fix needed here if deleted I think ... ] ] vpiMultiConcat ---> vpiMultiConcatOp (no comment on the existence or ] lack of Op !). ] ] vpiDelayedImplyOp is really vpiNonOverlapImplyOp ] (vpiOverlapImplyOp can ] be used in same places too...). ] ] 2) To ADD in sv_vpi_user.h (used in sequence/property composition) ] A) vpiOr or vpiOrOp (latter better) ] B) vpiAndOp ] C) vpiUnboundedConst (this is $) ] D) vpiAssertion (32.31) ] ] Thx. ] -Bassam. ] ] -- ] Dr. Bassam Tabbara ] Architect, R&D ] Novas Software Inc. ] (408) 467-7893 ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On ] Behalf Of Jim ] Vellenga ] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:01 PM ] To: Duncan, Ralph; SV-CC ] Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Proposal uploaded for 487 ] ] Curious, ] ] For Note 2 of 32.34, which we're proposing to move: ] ] vpi_user.h has a #define for vpiNotOp. ] ] sv_vpi_user.h defines vpiImplyOp. ] ] But I don't see a #define in either for vpiDelayedImplyOp, vpiAndOp, ] vpiOrOp, vpiIfOp, or vpiIfElseOp. Can anyone else confirm or ] disconfirm ] this? ] ] Was there a ballot issue on this? ] ] And since I'm pulling on this thread, No1e 1 in 32.36 also ] has vpiAndOp ] and vpiOr (instead of vpiOrOp). The others from that note do ] appear in ] sv_vpi_user.h. ] However, sv_vpi_user.h also defines vpiOverlapImplyOp and ] vpiNonOverlapImplyOp, which are _not_ used anywhere else in the ] standard! ] ] And while Note 1 of 32.39 -- as well as the corresponding note in the ] 1364 draft standard -- refer to vpiMultiConcat, the actual ] definition in ] vpi_user.h is vpiMultiConcatOp. ] ] Annoying. ] ] If someone else confirms, I'll put in a Mantis item. ] ] Regards, ] Jim Vellenga ] ] --------------------------------------------------------- ] James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 ] Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636 ] Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com ] 270 Billerica Rd ] Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 ] "We all work with partial information." ] ---------------------------------------------------------- ] ] ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] ] From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On ] ] Behalf Of Duncan, Ralph ] ] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:04 PM ] ] To: SV-CC ] ] Subject: [sv-cc] Proposal uploaded for 487 ] ] ] ] 487: mentioning operand order for property-expression operations. ] ] ] ] I've uploaded a proposal that moves the text as suggested. ] It is not ] ] clear whether this really gains anything. ] ] ] ] Ralph ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]Received on Tue Apr 19 06:49:44 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 06:49:51 PDT