Hi Matt, Here are my votes. SVDB 1397 _X_Yes ___No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1397 <http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1397> SVDB 1809 ___Yes ___No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1809 I will withhold my vote on 1809 until we figure out if we are voting on Gordon or Francoise’s proposal. SVDB 2037 _X_Yes ___No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2037 SVDB 2106 X__Yes ___No http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/7701.html http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2106 SVDB 1602 ___Yes X__No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1602 On 1602, I found some minor typos in the example in the proposal: task t1 (output o = a) ; // default binds to m.a ... endtask :a task t2 (output o = b) ; // illegal, b cannot be resolved ... endtask :b Observe the labels after the endtask keywords. The first should be :t1 and the second should be :t2. Also, after all the discussion in the Mantis bug notes, I would like to see an example using a default for an inout formal argument. Just to be crystal clear on the semantics. If the above two points are addressed, I will change my vote to YES. SVDB 2097 _X_Yes ___No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2097 I vote Yes, but the grammar at the very end of the proposal is a bit rough (See below) There should be no hyphen between “shall” and “maintain”. And at the very end of the sentence, there should probably be an “is executed.” When released, then if the variable is not driven by a continuous assignment and does not currently have an active assign procedural continuous assignment, the variable shall not immediately change value and shall maintain its current value until the next procedural assignment. Regards, Doug -- 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 Wed Dec 12 23:16:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 23:17:48 PST