fyi ________________________________ From: owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Warmke, Doug Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:30 PM To: Charlie Dawson; SV-CC Subject: RE: [sv-cc] [Fwd: Questions on merged DPI clause] Hello SV-CC, Here is my analysis of the 34.9 subclause that Stu has identified as largely redundant. In effect, Stu is correct. I think almost the whole subclause can be safely deleted. Following I will list a few items in 34.9 that I think would add value if left in the LRM. I suggest likely locations to move the text. 1. Declaring a SystemVerilog function to be exported does not change the semantics or behavior of this function from the SystemVerilog perspective (i.e., there is no effect in System-Verilog usage other than making this exported function also accessible to C callers). I think that this text could be moved to 34.6, as the last sentence in the first paragraph in 34.6. Other than that, I did text searches and found that Stu is correct. All items in 34.9 (which apparently was transplanted from P1800-2005 at the end of the "Tasks and Functions" Clause) have total redundancy with existing 34.9 text. In fact, it looks like copy-n-paste was used in most cases(!) Thanks and regards, Doug Warmke > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Dawson > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:02 AM > To: SV-CC > Subject: [sv-cc] [Fwd: Questions on merged DPI clause] > > Something for the agenda tomorrow. > > -Chas > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Questions on merged DPI clause > Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:24:10 -0700 > From: Stuart Sutherland <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> > Reply-To: <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> > Organization: Sutherland HDL, Inc. > To: 'Charlie Dawson' <chas@cadence.com> > > Chas., > > So that this doesn't get lost, I want to call your attention to subclause > 34.9 in the merged DPI clause. This subclause came from another part of the > 1800-2005 LRM. It seems to me to be redundant with the rest of the DPI > clause. I have added a margin "Question" to this effect. > > I have attached a copy of Clause 34 the way it will go into draft 3 of the > LRM. I doubt there is time for your committee to review and answer the > redundancy question, but you have until about 6 PM tomorrow if you do want > to address the issue before draft 3 is finalized. > > Stu > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Stuart Sutherland > Sutherland HDL, Inc. > stuart@sutherland-hdl.com > 503-692-0898 > > > -- > Charles Dawson > Senior Engineering Manager > NC-Verilog Team > Cadence Design Systems, Inc. > 270 Billerica Road > Chelmsford, MA 01824 > (978) 262 - 6273 > chas@cadence.com > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue May 8 09:37:12 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 08 2007 - 09:37:44 PDT