[ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:52:08 -0700
"In other words, 'If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be
True' was in the spec to make sure that 'Use_Init_Output = False,
GetWave_Exists = false' does not happen."
This statement implies that Use_Init_Output does have meaning
in the case when GetWave doesn't exist, which is in contradiction
with the statement that "Use_Init_Output was intended to make sense
*only* when there was a getwave in the model."
Sorry, but we are back to square one on this one...
Arpad
==================================================================
________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ambrish Varma
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:46 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
Fangyi,
Use_Init_Output was intended to make sense *only* when there was a
getwave in the model. I think we all agree on that.
If there is no getwave, it is understood that the Init does the
filtering.
So a statement "If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be
True" makes sense because the other scenario - 'Use_Init_Output = False,
GetWave_Exists = false' is untenable.
In other words, 'If Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be
True' was in the spec to make sure that 'Use_Init_Output = False,
GetWave_Exists = false' does not happen.
Regards,
Ambrish.
Ambrish Varma | Sr Member of Technical Staff
P: 978.262.6431 www.cadence.com <http://www.cadence.com>
________________________________
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dmitriev-Zdorov,
Vladimir
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:41 PM
To: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx; Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
Right, I overlooked the negation in your first statement
-----Original Message-----
From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:36 AM
To: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir; Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
If A then B is equivalent to if !B then !A.
From: Dmitriev-Zdorov, Vladimir
[mailto:vladimir_dmitriev-zdorov@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:31 AM
To: RAO,FANGYI (A-USA,ex1); Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
We need some extra reasoning for that.
By itself the statement "if A then B" does not necessitate "if B then A"
(an apple is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessary an apple).
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Truth table taken to the next level
Hi, Arpad;
You are right there is no statement in the BIRD about "if
GetWave_Exists=False, Use_Init_Output must be True". But it's the same
as "Use_Init_Output is False, GetWave_Exists must be True".
Regards,
Fangyi
Other related posts:
