errata/618: 15.3.2: $timeskew Case 3 and Case 4 are the same

From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 08:50:00 PDT

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "Re: errata/617: word "parameter" should be "argument""

    >Number: 618
    >Category: errata
    >Originator: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    >Description:

    THis was posted on comp.lang.verilog.
    See my comments following.

    Shalom

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:35:30 +0000
    From: Pooja Maheshwari <mpooja@agere.com>

    In V2K1 $timeskew has been introduced as new timing check.
    On page number 252 of standard 4 cases for $timeskew
    arguments (event based flag and remain active flag) are defined.

    Case3 and case 4 both says Event based and remain active flags are set.
    Does anybody know, whether 4 cases and their interpretations are defined
    properly or not.

    ---------------------------------------

    I think Pooja is correct and they are the same.

    I also found the following, which strengthens that conjecture:

    On Ballot Draft 5, comment AH-10 was:

    On page 257, the text under case 2 should go with case 3 instead. In case 2, the remain active flag is not set, so only one violation should be reported after a rising edge on CP. The text currently in the document for case 3 saying that all CPN edges would cause a violation is wrong because CPN edges after E would not cause violations, since the rising CP edge at F with MODE low would disable the check.

    Then the resolution for Draft 6 was:

    Changed to following--- Case 2: The first negative transitions on CPN at points C shall cause a timing violation and then goes dormant since the remain active flag is not set. Case 3: The first three negative transitions on CPN at points C, D, and E shall cause timing violations. The second reference event at F occurs while mode is false, turning the $timeskew check dormant, and no further violations are reported. This is identical behavior to $skew.

    It seems that somehow the last sentence got separated into a separate Case 4.

    In looking at this, I found a couple of more issues, I think.
    To be continued...

    Shalom

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 08:50:37 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.