RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Closes 12pm PST Nov 01

012 ___Yes _XX__No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000012

Does this really fix all places where the bitstream operator can be used
as an lvalue, like an output port? If so, then I change my vote to yes.

020 __XX_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000020

029 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000029

031 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000031

034 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000034

038 __XX_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000038

Francoise and Mark raise the question about knowing the size of a
variable (un-fixed) sized type without evaluating the expression. First,
you can't do this at elaboration time because it is illegal to ask for
the size of variable sized type at elaboration. Second, at runtime, I
think we will have to make an exception for a function call at run time
that returns a variable sized type. Another erratum.

039 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000039

109 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000109

119 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000119

120 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000120

159 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000159

163 __XX_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000163

258 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000258

259 _XX__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000259
It would be nicer if the proposal just said 'delete' the text instead of
replace the text with deleted text.

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com