272 _x_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000272
273 _x_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000273
276 _x_Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000276
285 ___Yes _x_No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000285
I think this description applies to packed unions, but it is not
clear how it applies to unpacked unions.
291 ___Yes _x_No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000291
I have no problem with the clarification of the assignment order,
but on the change from assignment compatible elements to type equivalent
elements, I am concerned that we have completely changed direction on the
issues of array assignment and casting several times over the last
year. The argument is we need to make these changes to be consistent
with bit stream casting, but I am not convinced that the current
description of bit stream casting makes sense, particularly
concerning dynamic types. Consider this case:
typedef struct ( byte a[]; } ST;
typedef ST TypeA[0:1];
TypeA a;
TypeA b;
I think
a = b;
and
a = TypeA'(b);
do completely different things both with and without this change.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The issues below are related to 254. Brad has annotated
the Bug Notes section of each of these issues with relevant
information.
PROPOSED DUPLICATES oF 254 BASED ON RESOLUTION OF 254:
014 _x_Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000014
032 _x_Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000032
094 _x_Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000094
100 _x_Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000100
146 _x_Yes ___No IIssue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000146
212 _x_Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
resolution of 254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000212
PROPOSED NOT A BUG BASED ON RESOLUTION OF 254:
102 _x_Yes ___No Issue is no longer a bug, based on resolution of
254.
http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000102
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of
> Maidment, Matthew R
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:33 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST Nov 17
>
>
> Hello Everyone.
>
> It's time for another email vote. Please remember that the
> operating guidelines specify:
>
> -You have 1 week to respond (Midnight November 17)
> -An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible
> voters respond with a YES vote.
> -If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason.
> The issue will then be up for discussion at the next conference call.
>
> As of the November 8th meeting, the eligible voters are:
>
> Brad Pierce
> Karen Pieper
> Dan Jacobi
> Dave Rich
> Francoise Martinolle
> Mark Hartoog
> Rishiyur Nikhil
> Cliff Cummings
> Steven Sharp
> Stuart Sutherland
> Don Mills
> Logie Ramachandran
> Surrendra Dudani
> Doug Warmke
> Kathy McKinley
> Greg Jaxson
>
>
> 272 ___Yes ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000272
>
> 273 ___Yes ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000273
>
> 276
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000276
>
> 285 ___Yes ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000285
>
> 291 ___Yes ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000291
>
> The issues below are related to 254. Brad has annotated
> the Bug Notes section of each of these issues with relevant
> information.
>
> PROPOSED DUPLICATES oF 254 BASED ON RESOLUTION OF 254:
> 014 ___Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000014
>
> 032 ___Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000032
>
> 094 ___Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000094
>
> 100 ___Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000100
>
> 146 ___Yes ___No IIssue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000146
>
> 212 ___Yes ___No Issue is now resolved, duplicate of 254, based on
> resolution of 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000212
>
> PROPOSED NOT A BUG BASED ON RESOLUTION OF 254:
> 102 ___Yes ___No Issue is no longer a bug, based on resolution of
> 254.
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000102
>
>
> --
> Matt Maidment
> mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
>
Received on Tue Nov 16 12:40:46 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 12:40:49 PST