Hi guys-- I have attempted to implement fixes for the 1st and 3rd bullet items below, in the attached doc. Please take a look & comment. The second bullet looks to me like a proposal for a general VPI improvement, rather than a specific issue with this proposal. Especially since the first part of the statement deals with assertions, rather than checkers specifically. Since we have been directed not to bring up new proposals at this stage, I have left that unaddressed for now, though we can probably discuss more if you think this is an urgently needed fix. ________________________________ From: Korchemny, Dmitry Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:24 PM To: Seligman, Erik Cc: Korchemny, Dmitry Subject: RE: SV-AC Mantis items Hi Erik, Yes, it is correct. The comments I captured are: * Atomic statements lack concurrent assertions (and checkers) * Should VPI assertions from modules also return generated assertions from the concurrent assertions found in the procedural context?(should they return the procedural concurrent assertions). Same with checkers. * This note is not completely clear to me. * Add a checker to the right diagram of 36.9 (instance item, similarly to assertions). You can contact Charles Dawson (chas@cadence.com), SV-CC chair and Jim Vellenga (vellenga@cadence.com). Thanks, Dmitry ________________________________ From: Seligman, Erik Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:22 AM To: Korchemny, Dmitry Subject: SV-AC Mantis items Hi Dmitry-- Am I correct in inferring that the ones you wanted me to take over are 2250 and 2182? Don't forget to fwd me the current relevant emails, if any... Erik Seligman Formal Verification Architect Corporate Design Solutions Design Technology and Solutions Intel Corporation M.S. JF4-402 2111 NE 25th Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: (503) 712-3134 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 10 2008 - 10:09:42 PDT