885 _X__ Yes ___ No CLOSE 885, covered by 339 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000885 1384 ___ Yes _X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001384 I also do not like the change of "superclass" to "parent's class". I think this is ambiguous for nested classes. 1609 _X__ Yes ___ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001609 1715 ___ Yes _X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001715 Since the -> and ->> cannot be applied to an event handle that holds a reference to a clocking block name, this will require dynamic error checking at simulation time. I would like to understand why this feature is needed to justify the complexity of this proposal. 1723 _X__ Yes ___ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001723 1851 _X__ Yes ___ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001851 2021 _X__ Yes ___ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002021 2055 ___ Yes _X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002055 I think this needs to be discussed. The change is not backwards compatible and I would like to understand what the justification for the change is. 2113 _X__ Yes ___ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002113 2137 ___ Yes _X__ No http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137 I agree that action blocks need to be added to the list. I am confused why just sequence match subroutine calls are being added. There also are sequence match assignment and increment/decrement statements. Why are these not procedural? Why only subroutine calls? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Oct 25 14:43:49 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 25 2007 - 14:43:59 PDT