Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension

Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension
From: Michael Burns (Michael.Burns@motorola.com)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 16:10:24 PST

• Next message: Dave Rich: "[sv-ec] revised Inside operator spec SV-BC 139"
• Previous message: Ryan, Ray: "RE: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• In reply to: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• Reply: Michael Burns: "Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi folks,

Here are my votes:

>
>Errata:
>
>
>
> ERR-5: Modify the built-in namespace proposal to be
>consistent with packages
>
> __Yes _X_No

Would like to see a name for the namespace

>
>
>
>Extensions (Indicate if you are your company's representative):
>

Yes, I am Motorola's representative.

>
> EXT_3: Virtual Interfaces
>
> __Yes _X_No
>

I agree with Jay; I don't understand what's special about this. It
looks just like passing an interface by reference. We can already pass
other static objects such as registers by reference; why not
use the same mechanism for interfaces as well?

>
> EXT_7: Reacting to assertions
>
> _X_Yes __No
>
>
> EXT_16: Event control for coverage
>
> _X_Yes __No
>
>
>
>This vote will close at the end of Sunday (and the results discussed
>in the Monday morning SV-EC meeting 11:00-1:00pm PST).
>

Mike Burns

Motorola

• Next message: Dave Rich: "[sv-ec] revised Inside operator spec SV-BC 139"
• Previous message: Ryan, Ray: "RE: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• In reply to: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• Reply: Michael Burns: "Re: [sv-ec] Email Vote on errata and extension"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 16:11:58 PST