Subject: feedback on Kevins Section 9 proposal
From: Martin O'Leary (oleary@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 16:26:39 PDT
Here is my feedback on last weeks proposal.
Note: C0 are issues of major concern
C1 are issues of lesser concern
C1: suggest we get guidance on using the quotes in
C1: think you should say analog events or analog-to-analog
events rather "crossing" or timer events.
C0: re last paragraph of 9.2.2.2
not having implicit sensitivity to digital signals will
mean that the behavior of the mixed signal analog blocks
will be at the mercy of the analog time-step selection
mechanism unless the user additionally puts a event sensitive
statement for every digital signal referenced in the
analog block.
Based on the discussion with the committee at the last meeting
I suggest the following;
Change;
"As with digital processes, analog processes are insensitive to changes
in variables, i.e. a change in a variable does not force re-evaluation
of the process, neither are they implicitly sensitive to digital signals
used in procedural code, only changes in signals in event expressions
will trigger re-evaluation prior to scheduled wake-up."
to
"Analog processes are implicitly sensitive to all digital value changes
changes which affect the solution of an analog value but
which are not 'guarded' by an event control block or a conditional block.
This is consistent with analog value calculations being sensitive to
changes in other analog values."
Will forward email exchange with Ian on this issue shortly. !!!
example:
C0: 9.2.2.3
Issue with "trunctation" Vs "rounding" as this is
inconsistent with the VHDL-AMS simulation cycle and
make it Verilog-AMS/VHDL-AMS co-simulation very
challenging.
C0: 9.2.3
The source text for this example should be supplied
so that it can be used as a compliance test.
C0: 9.2.4
This should not be deleted - it contains valuable
information
Thanks,
--Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 16:30:59 PDT