0002396: Add edge identifier edge for events

(0007259)
Erik_Seligman (developer)
2008-07-23 09:42

Passed by voice vote in SV-SC meeting, 2008-07-22.

11y/0n/1a

Abstains: Lisa – just not sure, seems like there are other ways to do it.

(0007278)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-08-01 18:24

The proposal was sent back to the SV-SC by the
Champions in the July 31st, 2008 conference call.

Editorial Issues:
----------------
- p2 9.4.2,
  "An edge shall be detected whenever negedge or posedge is detected."
  edge should be in courier font.
- p3 bottom, "or equivalent" --> "or equivalently"
- p4 bottom and p5 top, s1, s2, s3
  The note here is from an older version of the draft.
  This may confuse the editor
- Last paragraph in top section of p5.
  The last blue sentence before 29.4.3 should use "named sequences"
  since that is in the current draft.
- posedge and negedge in this sentence need to be in the courier font.

Technical Problem with SDF back annotation
------------------------------------------
- The proposal adds the edge specifier. There is unspecified behavior
  with regards to sdf, 31.4.2 in draft 6
- What if an SDF timing check specifies a specific edge, e.g., posedge,
  and an SV timing check specifies "edge". What happens?
- 31.4.2 SDF timing checks shall match all SystemVerilog timing checks
- Example, p795, bottom, in this example there is no edge specified.
  This example is ok.
- What happens if the SDF specifies just one edge?
  If the specify block just specifies edge, what happens?
  Today if a specify block is a simple path it won't annotate.
  The sdf is only annotating for part of the behavior. It would be
  wrong to annotate it completely. Now edge can mean both edges.
  The behavior in this situation is not specified by LRM.

(0007296)
Erik_Seligman (developer)
2008-08-05 09:34

SV-SC approved latest edit in 2008-08-05 mtg. 9y/0n/0a.

(0007320)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-08-08 10:35

Uploaded the latest proposal from Jin.

(0007339)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-08-18 16:41

The proposal was approved by the Champions in the August 7th, 2008 conference
call with the following friendly amendments. The vote was not unanimous.

   1. All of the Editorial changes flagged in the bug note of August 1st, 2008
      need to be double-checked, to ensure that they are contained in the
      latest proposal.

   2. Last paragraph in top section of p5.
      The last blue sentence before 29.4.3 should use "named sequences" since
      that is in the current draft.

          From: "The sequence s4..."
            To: "The named sequence s4..."

      Move: Shalom - approve the proposal for 0002396 , with Editorial
                     amendments that are listed in the bug note, the change
                     to last sentence before 29.4.3 also needs to be updated.
    Second: Dave
   Abstain: Brad - doesn't think it is necessary, thinks it is confusing.
                   1. Some people will think that "@some_name" is level
                      sensitive instead of edge sensitive
                   2. Doesn't like that all the editorial issues were ignored.
     Passed with one abstain

Note: the August 12th sv-sc minutes show that Jin's latest proposal contains
      this set of changes and that they were unanimously approved.

(0007379)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-08-18 18:43

The proposal was unanimously approved by the Working Group
in the conference call of August 14, 2008.

(0007486)
Stuart Sutherland (manager)
2008-09-08 10:37

The change proposal was implemented in draft 7.

(0007527)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-09-16 16:14

The text at the end of 9.4.6 was not added:

If phi1 and phi2 refer to the same signal, then the assignment above can be simplified as

a <= repeat(a+b) @(edge phi1) data;

<adding draft 7 feedback for Lisa Piper>

(0007578)
Stuart Sutherland (manager)
2008-10-01 20:56

The changes requested in bug note 7527 were implemented in draft 7a.

(0007789)
Neil Korpusik (administrator)
2008-12-19 18:10

I verified that the requested change was made to 1800-2009 draft 7a.
Note that the change was in 9.4.5 (not 9.4.6 as shown in the bug note).

Changing the status to closed.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2008-05-26 00:56	Dmitry Korchemny	New Issue
2008-05-26 00:56	Dmitry Korchemny	Type	=> Enhancement
2008-05-26 01:52	shalom	Issue Monitored: shalom
2008-07-05 12:42	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy.doc
2008-07-16 15:32	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_jul16.doc
2008-07-16 15:32	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_jul16.pdf
2008-07-18 08:10	Dmitry Korchemny	Status	new => assigned
2008-07-18 08:10	Dmitry Korchemny	Assigned To	=> Dmitry Korchemny
2008-07-22 00:05	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_jul21.doc
2008-07-22 00:06	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_jul21.pdf
2008-07-23 09:42	Erik_Seligman	Note Added: 0007259
2008-07-23 09:42	Erik_Seligman	Status	assigned => resolved
2008-07-23 09:42	Erik_Seligman	Resolution	open => fixed
2008-07-23 09:42	Erik_Seligman	Fixed in Version	=> 1800-2009
2008-08-01 18:24	Neil Korpusik	Status	resolved => feedback
2008-08-01 18:24	Neil Korpusik	Resolution	fixed => reopened
2008-08-01 18:24	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007278
2008-08-03 13:50	shalom	Relationship added	related to 0002454
2008-08-04 11:16	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_aug04.doc
2008-08-04 11:17	Jin Yang	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_aug04.pdf
2008-08-05 09:34	Erik_Seligman	Note Added: 0007296
2008-08-05 09:34	Erik_Seligman	Status	feedback => resolved
2008-08-05 09:34	Erik_Seligman	Resolution	reopened => fixed
2008-08-08 09:39	Jin Yang	Issue Monitored: Jin Yang
2008-08-08 09:41	Jin Yang	Issue End Monitor: Jin Yang
2008-08-08 10:34	Neil Korpusik	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_aug08.doc
2008-08-08 10:35	Neil Korpusik	File Added: edge_new_prop_jy_aug08.pdf
2008-08-08 10:35	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007320
2008-08-18 16:41	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007339
2008-08-18 18:43	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007379
2008-08-18 18:43	Neil Korpusik	Status	resolved => approved
2008-09-08 10:37	Stuart Sutherland	Status	approved => completed
2008-09-08 10:37	Stuart Sutherland	Fixed in Version	1800-2009 => P1800-2009/D7
2008-09-08 10:37	Stuart Sutherland	Note Added: 0007486
2008-09-16 16:14	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007527
2008-09-16 16:14	Neil Korpusik	Status	completed => editor
2008-10-01 20:56	Stuart Sutherland	Status	editor => completed
2008-10-01 20:56	Stuart Sutherland	Note Added: 0007578
2008-12-19 18:10	Neil Korpusik	Status	completed => closed
2008-12-19 18:10	Neil Korpusik	Note Added: 0007789
2009-07-22 02:23	shalom	Relationship added	related to 0000154

Notes
(0007259) Erik_Seligman (developer) 2008-07-23 09:42	Passed by voice vote in SV-SC meeting, 2008-07-22. 11y/0n/1a Abstains: Lisa – just not sure, seems like there are other ways to do it.

(0007278) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-01 18:24	The proposal was sent back to the SV-SC by the Champions in the July 31st, 2008 conference call. Editorial Issues: ---------------- - p2 9.4.2, "An edge shall be detected whenever negedge or posedge is detected." edge should be in courier font. - p3 bottom, "or equivalent" --> "or equivalently" - p4 bottom and p5 top, s1, s2, s3 The note here is from an older version of the draft. This may confuse the editor - Last paragraph in top section of p5. The last blue sentence before 29.4.3 should use "named sequences" since that is in the current draft. - posedge and negedge in this sentence need to be in the courier font. Technical Problem with SDF back annotation ------------------------------------------ - The proposal adds the edge specifier. There is unspecified behavior with regards to sdf, 31.4.2 in draft 6 - What if an SDF timing check specifies a specific edge, e.g., posedge, and an SV timing check specifies "edge". What happens? - 31.4.2 SDF timing checks shall match all SystemVerilog timing checks - Example, p795, bottom, in this example there is no edge specified. This example is ok. - What happens if the SDF specifies just one edge? If the specify block just specifies edge, what happens? Today if a specify block is a simple path it won't annotate. The sdf is only annotating for part of the behavior. It would be wrong to annotate it completely. Now edge can mean both edges. The behavior in this situation is not specified by LRM.

(0007296) Erik_Seligman (developer) 2008-08-05 09:34	SV-SC approved latest edit in 2008-08-05 mtg. 9y/0n/0a.

(0007320) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-08 10:35	Uploaded the latest proposal from Jin.

(0007339) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-18 16:41	The proposal was approved by the Champions in the August 7th, 2008 conference call with the following friendly amendments. The vote was not unanimous. 1. All of the Editorial changes flagged in the bug note of August 1st, 2008 need to be double-checked, to ensure that they are contained in the latest proposal. 2. Last paragraph in top section of p5. The last blue sentence before 29.4.3 should use "named sequences" since that is in the current draft. From: "The sequence s4..." To: "The named sequence s4..." Move: Shalom - approve the proposal for 0002396 , with Editorial amendments that are listed in the bug note, the change to last sentence before 29.4.3 also needs to be updated. Second: Dave Abstain: Brad - doesn't think it is necessary, thinks it is confusing. 1. Some people will think that "@some_name" is level sensitive instead of edge sensitive 2. Doesn't like that all the editorial issues were ignored. Passed with one abstain Note: the August 12th sv-sc minutes show that Jin's latest proposal contains this set of changes and that they were unanimously approved.

(0007379) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-18 18:43	The proposal was unanimously approved by the Working Group in the conference call of August 14, 2008.

(0007486) Stuart Sutherland (manager) 2008-09-08 10:37	The change proposal was implemented in draft 7.

(0007527) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-09-16 16:14	The text at the end of 9.4.6 was not added: If phi1 and phi2 refer to the same signal, then the assignment above can be simplified as a <= repeat(a+b) @(edge phi1) data; <adding draft 7 feedback for Lisa Piper>

(0007578) Stuart Sutherland (manager) 2008-10-01 20:56	The changes requested in bug note 7527 were implemented in draft 7a.

(0007789) Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-12-19 18:10	I verified that the requested change was made to 1800-2009 draft 7a. Note that the change was in 9.4.5 (not 9.4.6 as shown in the bug note). Changing the status to closed.