There are still plenty of errata in the P1364 standard to keep us busy, too. For example, regarding signing http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2731.html and configs -- http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/107.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/108.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/175.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/212.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/248.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/372.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/501.html http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf/report/full_pr/514.html -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 AM To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800 >From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> >It's a question of priorities, opportunity cost, return on investment, >and resource constraints. And this is true even if we ignore the "real job" issues that Brad raised. Even within the standardization effort there are priorities. The current 1800 standard contains a large number of errata that need to be fixed. Until the worst of these are addressed, this is much more urgent than the merging of standards. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Mon Jan 30 11:55:17 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 11:55:58 PST