Neil mentioned to me last Thursday that we might need to vote on these
Monday, if he gets approval for us to work on them.
We discussed 2243 at the last meeting. This was the one regarding
option.per_instance and how the option defaults might affect
post-process merging. We agreed to leave room for vendor-specific
behavior. I hope I've captured the sentiment properly.
We did not discuss 2242, but this is a relatively serious problem, I
think, if I understand the original motivation. It relates to the
values assigned by get_coverage() and get_inst_coverage() when optional
arguments are given. I don't particularly like some aspects of my
proposal, but this is the best I can do without discussion. Please do
give feedback by e-mail if you have any.
For reference:
http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2242
http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2243
-- David Scott, Mentor Graphics
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Feb 26 18:48:30 2008