>SVDB 699 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=699 > >SVDB 907 ___Yes _X_No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=907 Need clearer wording on not implicitly instantiating these modules. >SVDB 1035 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1035 > >SVDB 1228 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1228 > >SVDB 1425 ___Yes _X_No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1425 The blue paragraph refers to the expression 1'b1+2'b00, while the example contains 1'b1-2'b00. However, this should be easy to amend. >SVDB 1468 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1468 > >SVDB 1710 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1710 > >SVDB 1747 ___Yes _X_No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1747 I am in favor of adding this functionality, as it addresses the main difficulty with using `default_nettype. But I agree with other comments that the mechanism in the proposal is likely to be confusing. >SVDB 1846 ___Yes _X_No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1846 I do think that it would be valuable to have a "1364-2005-noconfig" version specifier. The config keywords are still the only thing that creates significant keyword conflicts between 1364-2005 and 1364-1995. I don't think that this reasoning extends to a "1800-2005-noconfig" or "1800-2008-noconfig" specifier. The new 1800-2005 keywords create so many keyword conflicts that there seems little point in eliminating the config keywords. >SVDB 1940 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1940 I think the concerns about whether the LRM says you can declare vector nets is handled in section 6.6, where it says that "Any 4-state data type can be used to declare a net." >SVDB 1949 _X_Yes ___No >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1949 Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sun Sep 30 11:02:44 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 11:03:18 PDT