[sv-cc] RE: VPI issues

Hi Lisa,
 
Comment on your question can be found below and yes 1503 is a good
mantis item to use, old proposal there can be deleted. Overall, the
proposal looks good and is mostly consistent with our cleanup discussion
-- thx for putting in the diagramming effort. The one change I do not
agree with is that of 38.4.2 which disallows CBs to seq/inst. As I
explained in some detail before you do need to get the result of
sequence/property inst, otw the data is lacking -- each inst has a
unique handle instance so there is no issue here.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 


________________________________

From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:28 PM
To: Bassam Tabbara
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; sv-cc@eda-stds.org; john.havlicek@freescale.com
Subject: VPI issues



Hi Bassam,

I have drafted a proposal for the issues we have been discussing.  I
would like to push to get this approved for the 2008 release of the
standard.  I think it would be good to combine this with the existing
1503 since there is a lot of overlap.  The changes of 1503 are included
in the attached with the exception of the changes to the property spec.
Regarding the property spec, I question whether you need to make the
change (that is, add vpiArgument to the property inst box) since this is
shown in the property declaration diagram. 
[Bassam Tabbara] I don't think it's needed, should be on the definition
diagram really -- I had added there on the 1503 mini proposal to be
somewhat consistent with the sequence version. Actually, if you look at
36.48 you can see it's actually there is a weird way in 36.48 (that
iteration to "arguments" !). Not sure exactly what the policy should be
(I would think it needs to be on the *definition* diagram not on rest),
so will leave it up to CC to discuss and figure out exactly the cleanup
needed including 36.48.  And if it is needed, then I would think you
would also need it for the sequence expr, which can be a sequence
instance. 

I would appreciate if you could review the attached so we can jointly
get this to the point of being able to vote on it.  Review the top part
where I point out the things I'm not sure of.  I will be on the road
until Wednesday and may not be able to check email.

<<vpiIdentifier.doc>> 

Lisa

P.S. note that 1503 has not been updated to reflect draft 4 so it will
likely be easier to start from the attached


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