[sv-bc] RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting Minutes for 04/02/2008

]
]If you had a null port at the beginning, I guess the current 
]rules would
]define it as a non-ANSI style port list, and then the rest of the
]subclause would not be applicable.
]
]Regards,
]Shalom

Yes, except that if a port belongs to a non-ANSI style port list,
"port direction and type declarations shall be declared after the
port list," according to the latest form of the proposal for 1465.
And it's a little hard to declare port direction and type for
a null port, either inside or outside the port list.

Regards,
Jim Vellenga

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Software Architect                     (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information." 
----------------------------------------------------------  

]-----Original Message-----
]From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On 
]Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
]Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:27 AM
]To: sv-cc@eda.org
]Cc: sv-bc
]Subject: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting Minutes for 04/02/2008
]
]Hi,
]
]Thank you for the feedback on Mantis 1465. 
]
]>    - Review Item 1465 (per Shalom's request)
]>      Francoise asked about the direction of a port.  There is 
]> vpiNoDirection.
]>      Can that be used in this case?  If it is not explicitly 
]> specified then it
]>      takes the direction from the preceding one.  It does 
]> have a direction.
]>      Only time we would have no direction is for interfaces 
]> and modports.  What
]>      if we had a null port at the beginning?
]>      Suspended debate until next meeting
]
]I would like to emphasize that these questions are valid for 
]the current
]LRM as well. 1465 puts order in the subclause in question, corrects an
]error, and fills in the holes in the specification for regular net and
]variable port declarations. Any remaining holes are in the existing LRM
]as well.
]
]I agree that even after 1465, the subclause does not take into account
]interface or modport ports. That occurred to me as well and I added a
]bug note about it to Mantis 2273, which is sort of a parent to 1465.
]Interface ports do not have port kinds or data types either, at least
]not the same types as net and variable ports.
]
]If you had a null port at the beginning, I guess the current 
]rules would
]define it as a non-ANSI style port list, and then the rest of the
]subclause would not be applicable.
]
]Regards,
]Shalom
]---------------------------------------------------------------------
]Intel Israel (74) Limited
]
]This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
]the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
]by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
]recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
]
]
]-- 
]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.