I will not be able to make the meeting on March 25, which is not on the usual Monday day of the week. I am teaching a class at the time of this meeting. Following are my votes on the e-mail ballot. > SVDB 1465 _X_Yes ___No Comment: As the editor, I found the editing directions a little confusing, but it may all make sense when I am actually making the changes. If not, I can work with the author of the proposal to make sure the changes are implemented as intended. > > SVDB 1769 ___Yes _X_No I vote no because the syntax for an elaboration $fatal task is not the same as for a run-time $fatal task. The former does not have a "finish_number" argument. I will change my vote to yes if the two versions of $fatal are made consistent (and backward compatible). >SVDB 2269 ___Yes _X_No The proposal would have any size cast result in an [n-1:0] size. I do not think this rule is intuitive or what users would want every time. Consider the following: logic [0:47] foo; 32'(foo) // results in an expression of [31:0] -- which bit of foo goes to which bit of the operation result? I am not sure what changes to the proposal are needed to change my vote to yes. I'd like to see more discussion on this proposal first. 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 Mon Mar 24 22:45:26 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 24 2008 - 22:46:06 PDT