Well we can change to say that tolerances must be non-negative, because that seems to be correct. And we could have the mantis item to address the ambiguity of when you specify a 0 tolerance. Does that sound ok? Dave Sri Chandra wrote: > 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 >>> >> > -- ============================================== -- It's a beautiful day -- Don't let it get away -- -- David Miller -- Design Technology (Austin) -- Freescale Semiconductor -- Ph : 512 996-7377 Fax: x7755 ============================================== -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jul 24 09:40:19 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 24 2008 - 09:40:22 PDT