[ibis-macro] FW: Revisiting IBISCHK5 comments...
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:38:01 -0700
Hello everyone,
I gave Mike and Bob a little homework to find out what the issues
or questions were regarding rows 21-25 in our Task List spreadsheet.
Mike wrote an email to our parser developer and received the
response below. I would like to discuss these topics in the
ATM teleconference today, so I would like to encourage everyone
to take a look at them before the meeting if possible.
Thanks,
Arpad
=====================================================================
Hello Mike
Here is what I can recollect. If you need further clarifications, please
let me know.
atul
1) As per the specification, the syntax for a leaf is
<leaf>:
( <parameter name> whitespace <value list> )
However, a Table format as documented, has leaf nodes which look like
(-50 -0.1 1e-35).
In such leaves, the first value will be treated as a name (string ).
Perhaps it is better to change such lines to
(Row -50 -0.1 1e-35)
This is now consistent with a leaf node spec.
2) The AMI BNF in the spec is as follows:
| <tree>:
| <branch>
|
| <branch>:
| ( <branch name> <leaf list> )
|
| <leaf list>:
| <branch>
| <leaf>
| <leaf list> <branch>
| <leaf list> <leaf>
|
| <leaf>:
| ( <parameter name> whitespace <value list> )
As per the above BNF, the Format = Table syntax is invalid.
(Format Table
(Labels Row_No Time Probability)
(-5 -5e-12 1e-10)
(-4 -4e-12 3e-7)
(4 4e-12 3e-7)
(5 5e-12 1e-10)
)
Instead of the Table keyword, a list is expected instead as per the
spec.
If the table syntax is changed to the following, then it is consistent
with the spec.
(Format (Table
(Labels Row_No Time Probability)
(-5 -5e-12 1e-10)
(-4 -4e-12 3e-7)
(4 4e-12 3e-7)
(5 5e-12 1e-10)
)
)
3) As per the spec:
The following reserved parameters are used by the EDA tool
| and are required if the [Algorithmic Model] keyword is
| present. The entries following the reserved parameters
| points to its usage, type and default value. All
reserved
| parameters must be in the following format:
| (parameter_name (Usage <usage>)(Type <data_type>)
| (Default <values>) (Description
<string>))
However, further down we find in the spec, that Default is NA ( which
makes sense since the parameter is required)
| | Reserved Parameter | Required Default | Info In Out InOut
|
| | Init Returns Impulse | Yes NA | X
|
| | GetWave Exists | Yes NA | X
|
And the table further down implies that the Format must be specified and
must be of format type "Value"
| | Data Format |
| ===================================================================
| | Reserved Parameter | V | R | C | L | I | S | G | D | D | T |
| | | a | a | o | i | n | t | a | u | j | a |
| | | l | n | r | s | c | e | u | a | R | b |
| | | u | g | n | t | r | p | s | l | j | l |
| | | e | e | e | | | s | | D | | e |
| +-------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | Init Returns Impulse | X |
| | GetWave Exists | X |
The example in the spec is
(Init_Returns_Impulse (Usage Info) (Type Boolean)(Default True))
(GetWave_Exists (Usage Info) (Type Boolean) (Default True))
4) The spec does not clearly spell out the relationship between
Type and Format (the allowable possible combinations)
For example,
if Type = Tap .. what are the allowable Formats ?
Is it OK to use Corner Format with String type ?
How is UI different from Float ?
From: Mirmak, Michael [mailto:michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:27 AM
To: atul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Revisiting IBISCHK5 comments...
Importance: High
Atul,
I realize that this dates back to around September of 2009, but we would
like to finish addressing your comments on the IBIS 5.0 AMI (.ami file)
definitions as we prepare IBIS 5.1.
You made five comments that we need some additional information to
understand and address, and we would appreciate your help in explaining
what's wrong. Do these look at all familiar? Can you explain why, for
example, Format=Table is invalid and what was wrong with the leaf
syntax? Was the interpretation of NA in Tables not well defined vs. NA
elsewhere in IBIS? Etc.
1) As per the above BNF, the Format = Table syntax is invalid.
2) Syntax for leaf
3) NA in Table - Not the same as NA
4) "Table 1 and Table 3 of Section 6c have certain ambiguities. Note
that these two rules build in an ambiguity about the relationship
between "Format" and text strings.
5) What about Format Table, Gaussian, DjRj and Dual-Dirac?
We will of course make announcements when a 5.1 parser development
schedule is more well-defined. Thanks in advance!
Michael Mirmak
Intel Corp.
Chair, IBIS Open Forum
Other related posts:
- » [ibis-macro] FW: Revisiting IBISCHK5 comments... - Muranyi, Arpad
