My votes below. I do have an issue with 907. I would like to ask for clarification of the following sentence "If a parameter of a design element has no default value, then the design element shall not be implicitly instantiated (see 22.3, 22.4, and 23.3)" My request is to not redirect the reader to these 3 huge clauses so they can understand the sentence. I think what I see missing in the proposal was an explanation of what happens when the call doesn't have a parameter value _and_ tne declaration doesn't assign a default. I think this sentence is attempting to explain this but can we make put this in more laymen's terms? I'd like to see something like "If a default is not assigned in the declaration and no value is provided in the call, an error shall be issued". I think the assumption being that when default values are not in the declaration, the call must provide them. Correct me if I am wrong:-) On 1468, I move that we use Shalom's friendly change. The wording will be "The always_latch procedure is almost identical to the always_comb procedure. All statements in 9.2.2.2 shall apply to always_latch as well. The exception is that software tools may perform additional checks to warn if the behavior in an always_latch procedure does not represent latched logic, whereas in an always_comb procedure, they may check and warn if the behavior does not represent combinational logic." -Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:28 AM To: sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mal Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Sunday Sep 30, 2007 Just a reminder to please respond. We need at least half of the voters to respond, otherwise we will review and vote on each issue during Monday's meeting. -- Matt Maidment mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com [Alsop, Thomas R] >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On >Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:53 PM >To: sv-bc@eda.org >Subject: [sv-bc] E-mal Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Sunday Sep 30, 2007 > > >-You have until 8am PDT, Sunday, September 30, 2007 to respond >-An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible > voters respond with a YES vote. >-If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by >a reason. > The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference >call. >-Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note > (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). > >As of the September 17, 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are: > >Brad Pierce >Shalom Bresticker >Cliff Cummings >Surrendra Dudani >Mark Hartoog >Francoise Martinolle >Karen Pieper >Dave Rich >Steven Sharp >Gordon Vreugdenhil >Stu Sutherland >Alex Gran >Don Mills >Heath Chambers >Tom Alsop > >SVDB 699 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=699 > >SVDB 907 ___Yes _X_No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=907 > >SVDB 1035 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1035 > >SVDB 1228 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1228 > >SVDB 1425 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1425 > >SVDB 1468 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1468 > >SVDB 1710 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1710 > >SVDB 1747 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1747 > >SVDB 1846 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1846 > >SVDB 1940 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1940 > >SVDB 1949 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1949 > >-- >This message has been scanned for viruses and >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Sep 28 10:29:45 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 28 2007 - 10:30:06 PDT