Subject: Fwd: Re: [sv-bc] email voting for several proposals
From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 15:55:53 PST
>>
>>
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC20 Typedef and generate issues
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0061.html
>>__yes _X_no SV-BC21-1,2,3 Granularity issues and function sensitivites
>This needs a write-up that can be put into the LRM. Otherwise I am OK with
>the proposal
>> URL under: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0292.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC29 Need bits to real and real to bits
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0293.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC2 Time Precision and timescale
>> URL under: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0326.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC58 Slices of unpacked arrays
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0331.html
>>__yes _X_no SV-BC5 Data alignment and packing
>Sharing C-compatible layouts with C code is beyond the charter of the SV-BC
>> URL under: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0363.html
>>
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC10b-1 Mascarading descriptions for VCD
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0380.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC62a Simpler declaration of unpacked
>>struct lits
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0382.html
My yes vote above is contingent on fixing the typo in the first example in
section 7.11:
Change: #1 s1 = {x:2, y:3+k);
To: #1 s1 = {x:2, y:3+k};
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC68 BNF Issues
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0404.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC60 Modport syntax issues
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0410.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC18h,i logic variable issues
>> URL under:
>> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0415.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC35 task port declarations in BNF
>> URL under: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0417.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC8-5 Issues with time data type
>> SV-BC12 Constant exprs; difference among
>> decls
>> SV-BC16f Issue with extern forkjoin task
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0422.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC66 Update BNF to reflect ETF changes
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0433.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC45 Dynamic checking of enums is
>>expensive
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0434.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC67 () after interface instantiation needed
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0435.html
>>__yes _X_no SV-BC65 Structure literals vs concat determination
>Dave is going to have to change his terminology to be in line with BC-62a
>>
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0436.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC35 Structure literals vs concat determination
>This is not the correct subject line, but I still vote yes for this proposal
>>
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0445.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC34a Multiple namespaces exist
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0446.html
>>_X_yes __no SV-BC19-17a signed function declarations (BNF)
>> SV-BC62b Packed array of packed
>> structs
>>
>>http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0454.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>--
>Dave Rich
>Principal Engineer, CAE, VTG
>Tel: 650-584-4026
>Cell: 510-589-2625
><mailto:DaveR@Synopsys.com>DaveR@Synopsys.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 15:57:35 PST