Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Email Vote 4
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 11:07:44 PST
I approve the modifications.
At 10:49 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, David W. Smith wrote:
>Francoise,
>Some further clarification on your issue with Annex C.
>
>There are some errors in this section that I will be fixing in CH-111 this
>morning.
>
>C.5 the return value for len should be int and not integer
>C.6 the index for putc (both versions) should be int and not integer
>C.7 the index for getc should be int and not integer
>C.10 the return value of compare should be int
>C.11 the return value of icompare should be int
>C.12 both indices to substr should be int and not integer
>C.19 realtoa should be passed real and not integer (fixed in CH-108).
>
>The return values of the ato??? functions and the arguments to the ?toa
>functions really should remain integer. This is consistent with the
>$sformat and $sscanf support with 1364-2001 defined in Sections 17.2.3 and
>17.2.4.3 respectively. The character set for the string representing
>integers is expanded to include:
>
> 0-9, x, X, z, Z, ?, _
>
>as is the literal definition for integer constants defined in Section 2.5.1.
>
>With this understanding do you wish to change your vote to yes on CH-10
>(with the proviso that CH-111 will support the above changes)?
>
>Does this negatively affect anyone elses vote?
>
>Regards
>David
>
>-----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 : Tue Feb 25 2003 - 11:09:16 PST