Re: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)

Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:35:25 PST

Next message: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Previous message: Jay Lawrence: "[sv-ec] ERR-44 - Proposal on consolidation of implication operators"
In reply to: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Next in thread: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Reply: Adam Krolnik: "Re: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Reply: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

HI David;

Will this standard package definition be part of the LRM? It would seem like
this is another appendix that contains the complete definition of the routines.

Thanks.

     Adam Krolnik
     Verification Mgr.
     LSI Logic Corp.
     Plano TX. 75074

Next message: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Previous message: Jay Lawrence: "[sv-ec] ERR-44 - Proposal on consolidation of implication operators"
In reply to: David W. Smith: "[sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Next in thread: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Reply: Adam Krolnik: "Re: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Reply: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal (revised)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:36:27 PST