Geoffrey, Still there is no reason to allow negative tolerance right? I agree with we need to clarify the meaning of zero tolerance and how simulators should handle this if allowed, and that is fine we can hold off on making these changes. I have minuted it in the AMS changes but possibly Dave can hold off on this and we can raise a mantis and get it resolved appropriately in the next revision. Regards, Sri Geoffrey.Coram wrote: > I wonder if we should hold off on this restriction for LRM 2.3 > and enter a mantis item. On the call, we talked about how > a zero tolerance would have some meaning related to the > simulator's minimum time step, and it seems that this is no > longer a simple editorial change. > > -Geoffrey > > > > David Miller wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> The typo in 5.10.3.3 I have corrected. >> >> As for the restriction, we can discuss in call tomorrow. >> >> Cheers... >> Dave >> >> Paul Floyd wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> There is a minor typo in 5.10.3.3 timer function: one occurrence of >>> 'timetol' rather than 'time_tol'. >>> >>> While I'm on the subject of time_tol, I see that for transition, >>> time_tol is specified as being non-negative: >>> >>> "td, rise_time, fall_time, and time_tol are optional, but if >>> specified shall be non-negative." >>> >>> No such restriction is specified for cross, above or timer. Is this >>> an oversight, or are zero or negative values allowed for these event >>> functions? >>> >>> Regards >>> Paul Floyd >> > -- Srikanth Chandrasekaran Design Technology (Tools Development) Freescale Semiconductor Inc. T:+91-120-439 5000 p:x3824 f: x5199 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jul 24 09:37:27 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 24 2008 - 09:37:30 PDT