Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Asychronous mailbox proposal
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 17:50:52 PST
The support for the "process" statement will be reviewed when we get to the
section on processes.
One of the suggestions that was made during the previous review of the
donation was that there was no difference between the "process" statement
and the fork...join none. Based on that the LRM was modified (for review
purposes) to remove the "process" statement (although not completely due to
an oversight).
As I have said before. None of the changes to the LRM are complete until we
review them in committee and accept them. I believe there have been a number
of other small changes due to the donation review that have made it into the
LRM. Nothing is complete until we review and accept it.
Hope this clarifies the confusion.
Stu, you did exactly what you were requested to do. Thanks.
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:41 PM
To: Kevin Cameron x3251; david.smith@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Asychronous mailbox proposal
At 04:41 PM 12/12/2002, Kevin Cameron x3251 wrote:
>BTW, when was striking out dynamic processes approved?
It was in the change instructions I received from the SV-EC. The change
explicitly said to replace the process section with the new fork-join
section.
Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland Sutherland HDL Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com 22805 SW 92nd Place
phone: 503-692-0898 Tualatin, OR 97062
www.sutherland-hdl.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 17:51:35 PST