[Fwd: Re: Meeting Minutes: Analog System Verilog Assertions: Oct 7th, 2008]

From: Anand Himyanshu-R61978 <Himyanshu.Anand_at_.....>
Date: Wed Oct 08 2008 - 07:25:59 PDT
FYI...

-- 
Himyanshu Anand
EDA Strategy, Vendor Relation and Customer Collaboration,
Design Technology Organization,
Freescale Semiconductor

7700 W. Parmer Lane, Loc/MD: TX32/PL34
Austin, TX 78729
email  : Himyanshu.Anand@freescale.com
Ph     : +1-512-996-5623
Fax    : +1-512-996-7432



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


attached mail follows:



> Srini (Synopsys) raised the question of using SV Tasks to check some of 
> the examples presented by Dejan. Dejan answered that assertions were 
> less ad hoc and that procedural AMS was not accurate enough to capture 
> all the properties. Srini wanted to know about the compactness of the 
> property. Dejan mentioned that assertions were more concise than writing 
> in 'C', also assertions are more expressive, they might not be that much 
> more concise than writing them in VAMS equivalent constructs.

Just one clarification, I meant that the current state of STL/PSL 
assertions was less expressive for some properties than VAMS, and not 
vice versa (the example of time bounds depending on slew rates).

Best,

Dejan
Received on Wed Oct 8 07:29:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 08 2008 - 07:30:12 PDT