RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 26th 2007

Stu's votes...
>  
>  885  _X_ Yes   ___ No    CLOSE 885, covered by 339
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000885        
> 
>  1384  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001384        
> 
>  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  
I vote no for two reasons.  
1) There have been issues raised by other voters that need to be resolved.
2) 1800 14.10 shows an example of @(dram) and says it is equivalent to
@(posedge phi1).  Using this same clocking example, the proposed use of
wait(dram) implies that it is equivalent to wait(posedge phi1), which I
consider to an undesirable change to the wait construct.
> 
>  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  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002021 
I will change my vote to yes if the word "NOTE" is removed, making the text
normative instead of informative.       
>  
>  2055  ___ Yes   ___ No  _X_ Abstain
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002055 
I abstain because I am not familiar enough with what verification gurus
expect for the distribution of values across bins.       
>  
>  2113  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002113        
> 
>  2137  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137        
>  

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.