> >SVDB 1828 ___Yes _X_No > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1828 I vote NO because the current wording in the LRM was deliberately chosen for the SV-2005 standard so as to allow different types of tools to perform checking appropriate for the tool. In my opinion, this item should be closed with a note that the BC considered JEITA's request, and feel that no change should be made. > > > >SVDB 2008 ___Yes _X_No > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2008 I am OK with the concepts, but feel some clean up is needed in the wording. I would also like to discuss making these "violation checks" be errors instead of warnings. > > > >SVDB 2219 _X_Yes ___No > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2219 > > > >SVDB 2043 _X_Yes ___No > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2043 > > > >SVDB 1564 _X_Yes ___No > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1564 Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sun Feb 17 22:11:13 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 17 2008 - 22:11:40 PST