| Number | 544
|
| Category | errata
|
| Synopsis | 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1?
|
| State | lrmdraft
|
| Class | errata-simple
|
| Arrival-Date | Feb 16 2004
|
| Originator | Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
|
| Release | 2001b: 15.5
|
| Description |
1. Table 61 in 15.5 says that if a timing check notifier is in the X state before a timing check violation, the violation causes it to change to 0. However, the VXL and NCV manuals say that a notifier changes from X to 1. Which is correct? Probably the Cadence docs. 2. Also, the name of Table 61 is "User-defined responses to timing violations". This seems wrong. The notifier behavior is not defined by the user. What the user can define is what to do when a notifier changes, which indicates a timing violation. It should probably be titled "Notifier value responses to timing violations". -- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478 |
| Fix |
15.5, Table 61: Change Table 61 to say that notifier toggles from X to either 1 or 0. Change title of Table 61 to "Notifier value responses to timing violations". |
| Audit-Trail |
From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/544: 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) NC-Verilog started out matching the standard, but was then changed to match Verilog-XL. Our users generally consider the second to be more important. Note that having a notifier toggle from X to 1 means that X is being treated like 0, which is consistent with most other such situations in Verilog. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com From: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: RE: errata/544: Re: errata/544: 15.5, Table 61: does notifier tog gle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:21:33 -0800 I guess it is nice that the opportunity exists for one entity to match XL while the rest of the community must rely on the IEEE work as the standard's official record of behavior. I understand that these statements are true and an accurate reflection of many Verilog users, but only serve to weaken and tarnish this group and the profession since it only reads to me that the work of this technical group is to a great degree irrelevant. Maybe all members of the team should be given copies of XL to help in the cause of bringing the LRM into alignment with XL. -Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com]On Behalf Of Steven Sharp Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:20 PM To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Subject: errata/544: Re: errata/544: 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? The following reply was made to PR errata/544; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/544: 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) NC-Verilog started out matching the standard, but was then changed to match Verilog-XL. Our users generally consider the second to be more important. Note that having a notifier toggle from X to 1 means that X is being treated like 0, which is consistent with most other such situations in Verilog. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com Fix replaced by Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com on Sun Feb 22 02:04:20 2004 15.5, Table 61: Change Table 61 to say that notifier toggles from X to 1 instead of to 0. Change title of Table 61 to "Notifier value responses to timing violations". From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com To: etf-bugs@boyd.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/544: PROPOSAL - 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:54:58 +0200 (IST) I have an alternate proposal: to allow an X notifier to change to either 0 or 1. Since what is important in notifiers is the change, in theory it should not matter exactly what the change is. Comments? Shalom On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Shalom Bresticker wrote: > 15.5, Table 61: > > Change Table 61 to say that notifier toggles from X to 1 > instead of to 0. > > Change title of Table 61 to > "Notifier value responses to timing violations". > > http://boydtechinc.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&database=default&pr=544 -- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478 [x]Motorola General Business Information [ ]Motorola Internal Use Only [ ]Motorola Confidential Proprietary From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com> To: etf-bugs@boyd.com, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Cc: Subject: Re: errata/544: Re: errata/544: PROPOSAL - 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:44:55 -0500 (EST) As you note, the primary use for notifiers is to have the value change trigger something, and it doesn't matter what the actual transition is for that purpose. That is presumably why this issue hasn't come up before. However, it is bothersome to try to compare the VCD output from two different simulators and have different notifier values obscuring any significant differences. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> To: <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>, <etf-bugs@boyd.com> Cc: Subject: RE: errata/544: Re: errata/544: PROPOSAL - 15.5, Table 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:24:47 -0800 Shalom, I support your solution. Having the first change of the notifier go to either 0 or 1 remains fully backward compatible with the 1364 standard, and allows existing implementations that do one or the other to all be IEEE compliant without having to change their code and potentially upset their customers. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com 503-692-0898 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com] On > Behalf Of Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 7:40 PM > To: etf-bugs@boyd.com > Subject: errata/544: Re: errata/544: PROPOSAL - 15.5, Table > 61: does notifier toggle from X to 0 or to 1? > > The following reply was made to PR errata/544; it has been > noted by GNATS. > > From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com > To: etf-bugs@boyd.com > Cc: > Subject: Re: errata/544: PROPOSAL - 15.5, Table 61: does > notifier toggle from > X to 0 or to 1? > Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:54:58 +0200 (IST) > > I have an alternate proposal: > > to allow an X notifier to change to either 0 or 1. > > Since what is important in notifiers is the change, > in theory it should not matter exactly what the change is. > > Comments? > > Shalom > > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Shalom Bresticker wrote: > > > 15.5, Table 61: > > > > Change Table 61 to say that notifier toggles from X to 1 > > instead of to 0. > > > > Change title of Table 61 to > > "Notifier value responses to timing violations". > > > > > http://boydtechinc.com/cgi-bin/issueproposal.pl?cmd=view&datab ase=default&pr=544 > > -- > Shalom Bresticker > Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com > Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: > +972 9 9522268 > Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: > +972 9 9522890 > POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: > +972 50 441478 > > [x]Motorola General Business Information > [ ]Motorola Internal Use Only > [ ]Motorola Confidential Proprietary > > > |
| Unformatted |
|
Hosted by Boyd Technology