I am uncomfortable with 2131. It is setting a precedent that a keyword distinction is needed (and appropriate) to get a different level of warning reporting. I know that we have previously stayed away from standardizing attribute forms but it seems to me that we should at least be considering this more thoroughly before adopting the keyword approach. Since there seems to be some tendency to add required warnings, if we want to standardize control over the conditions and forms of such warnings, I'd like to have that discussion explicitly. Gord. Clifford E. Cummings wrote: > Hi, Matt - > > I have added proposals for SVDB items 2115, 2124 and 2131. > > Could we add these to the agenda. I believe I can explain them quickly > and easily and they should be ready for a vote. > > Regards - Cliff > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc. > 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005 > Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486 > cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com > Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 17 07:52:29 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 17 2007 - 07:52:39 PST