RE: [sv-bc] Agenda: Aug 20 SV-BC Meeting

Thanks.  Addressed 2 issues regarding minutes.  

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bresticker, Shalom 
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:55 AM
>To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@server.eda.org
>Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Agenda: Aug 20 SV-BC Meeting
>
>Comments regarding August 6 minutes:
>
>"1745 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1745)
>
>   Shalom moves to accept proposal.
>   Don seconds.
>   No opposed.
>   No abstain. 
>   Motion passes.
>
>   Shalom immediately updated the proposal for SVDB 1957 with 
>friendly amendment"
>
>The last line is an error, accidentally copied from preceding 
>issue. There was no amendment to 1745, either.
>
>
>"917 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=917)
>  
>   Shalom withdraws current proposal."
>
>The murky wording in the proposal was simply copied from 
>existing text, but I have now reworded it, and there is an 
>updated proposal. No change to minutes needed.
>
>
>"  Don leads discussion about a potential enhancement, desired 
>by his customers,
>   of being able to parameterize configurations.  Gord warns 
>that there are still
>   some unresolved issues about configurations and that 
>parameters would be
>   a substantial enhancement.
>
>   AI: Don to initiate reflector discussion about 
>parameterizing configurations."
>
>Regarding this subject, I noticed the following in the 
>description of 1134:
>
>"Also note - one complaint that I have heard about 
>Verilog-2001 configurations is that we did not provide a means 
>of changing parameters from a config file. Seems like adding 
>the #(.name(value)) syntax to the instance assignment might be 
>the best approach. I would recommend NOT allowing defparam!"
>
>No change to minutes needed.
>
>
>"For a future meeting:
>
>+ Issues
>
>  1745 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1745)
>  1935 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1935)
>  1939 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1939)
>  1945 (http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1945)"
>
>This looks like a mistake. Of the 4, only 1939 is not in the 
>resolved state.
>
>Shalom 
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.