Re: [sv-ec] proposals for Mantises 2242 and 2243

From: David Scott <david_scott_at_.....>
Date: Wed Feb 27 2008 - 13:18:46 PST

I've uploaded a new proposal for 2242, just realized I made the same typo several times in it.  If you take a look, make sure you have the attachment dated a few minutes ago (Wednesday).

Dave



David Scott wrote:

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.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. Received on Wed Feb 27 13:19:54 2008