I have some issues with the differences between elab_fatal and elab_error. Why does there need to be a difference between a user directed "fatal" and "error"? What assumptions are being made about how elaboration occurs and when an "elab_fatal" occurs? Would it be "compliant" for an optimizer to report and elab_fatal error if it does parts of "elaboration" early? I think that this distinction is treading on areas that should not be in the LRM; there are too many potential assumptions about how and when various aspects of elaboration occur. It is fine to say that if an elab_error occurs that no simulation model is produced, but when and how that decision is made interacts with various tool specific aspects. Can you give a specific example of a scenario under which AC believes that it is important to reason about the behavior of the two forms in a tool-independent manner that admits *any* algorithm for elaboration? At most, if the difference is preserved, I would like the language for "elab_fatal" weakened to say that when elab_fatal occurs, the user is not interested in further errors and an implementation MAY terminate elaboration immediately (whatever that means). Gord. John Havlicek wrote: > Hi SV-BC: > > In our meeting 2008-02-05, SV-AC approved the following > request: > > SV-AC request that SV-BC review and approve 1769. > > > J.H. > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Feb 5 11:00:47 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 05 2008 - 11:03:48 PST