Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote 4
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 12:13:33 PST
At 06:29 PM 2/21/2003 -0800, David W. Smith wrote:
>Greetings,
>The week before DVCon and the reflector is quite....
>
>Just a reminder that there is an active vote being held as indicated
>below. I have received two (2) responses. Not a quorom. This is my
>friendly reminder to one and all that your vote counts. You have all
>registered, now is the time to be counted. Have a good weekend.
>
>Regards
>David
>
>The following are the list of changes that need approval. Please consider
>each and vote on them.
>
>__yes _X_no 1. Approve CH-10
Why are all the task and functions using the "integer" verilog type rather
than the "int" type?
The integer verilog type holds 4 state values. I think these string methods
ought to work
on int types rather than integer. The purpose of these methods is to
provide the dual functionality which already exists with C strings, correct?
If not, it would be appropriate to detail the conversion which is executed and
describe what does a X and Z converts to?
realtoa should take real type argument
>__yes _X_no 2. Approve CH-102
Would like Cpointer name instead of handle.
Would like to be able to have a C compatible struct contain a Cpointer type
fields, otherwise you cannot construct a C list using the C interface and
pass it back to Verilog.
We should not allow to have packed structs and packed unions contain
Cpointer member fields.
>__yes _X_no 3. Approve CH-103
I dont think that the following sentence is correct:
"SystemVerilog allows a subroutine declaration to specify a default value
for each singular (non-packed-array) argument."
because singular does not just mean non-packed array.
If you remove "(non packed array)" I will approve.
>_X_yes __no 4. Approve CH-104
I dont understand the row: "for arbitrary data type" in the table of
differences between a C pointer, a handle and a object handle. Does this
mean you can have void * C pointers but no generic SV object or SV handle?
>_X_yes __no 5. Approve CH-106
>_X_yes _X_no 6. Approve CH-107
>_X_yes __no 7. Approve CH-108
>Voting on these items will close on Tuesday 25 February 2003. Same voting
>rules as last time.
>
>All of these changes (with the exception of CH-108) have been incorporated
>into draft 3 even though they have not been approved. We can still make
>any corrections required.
>
>I expect that some of these will not pass since there are some significant
>changes in response to the action items. I am doing this to prune done the
>list of items to the ones that we need to discuss to help focus our time
>in meetings. This does include all of the feedback from Chapters 11 and 12
>that were made into changes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 12:15:22 PST