Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Email Vote 4
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 14:09:18 PST
At 01:30 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, David W. Smith wrote:
>Francoise
>For CH-103 I checked what Stu actually put in the LRM. It does not include
>the (non-packed array) so I have modified CH-103 to match. I will count
>this as approved.
Yes, approved
>
>For CH-10. You are definitely correct on the realtoa taking a real type. I
>too am confiused about the use of integer vs int on the string routines
>(both in Appendex C and in Chapter 3). I will look into it and get back
>with either a reason or a fix.
>
Okay
>Regards
>David
>
>
>David W. Smith
>Synopsys Scientist
>
>Synopsys, Inc.
>Synopsys Technology Park
>2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
>Hillsboro, OR 97124
>
>Voice: 503.547.6467
>Main: 503.547.6000
>FAX: 503.547.6906
>Email: <mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com>david.smith@synopsys.com
>http://www.synopsys.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>Francoise Martinolle
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:14 PM
>To: fm@ctdy075.cadence.com; sv-ec@eda.org
>Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote 4
>
>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 - 14:10:56 PST