Subject: feedback for the ballot response document
From: Jenjen Tiao (tiao@agere.com)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 13:25:11 PDT
All,
Bhasker had already posted part of my feedback in this email. Since
I am not
yet in labor, I thought I would finish my feedback for the rest of the
ballot response
document. I'm still including the part that has already been placed on
the reflector
for completeness. Thanks.
JAE01: the author seems to be saying that the translate_off/_on should
be kept,
explain to him the reasoning behind the WG resolution
SG02: I would like to suggest that all of the example code (whether in
part or
whole) need to be verified by actually generating the synthesizable code
to ensure
the correctness of the comments and explanation given in the doc.
However, since
there are quite a bit through out the entire doc, at least verify the
ones now that
will be given in response to the ballot.
JG01: explain to the author by stating to him the scope of the standard.
JL05: elaborate a bit more to the author on why the restriction has been
considered unnecessary.
JL07: may be changing the text to "two-dimensional array of reg data
type" instead
JL13: I'm sorry, I don't have a copy of the proposed standard and I am
just
assuming the issue has something to do with some code in some current
synthesis tools that the standard would like to get rid of and provide a
workaround using existing verilog construct. An example would be the
translate_off/translate_on meta-comments so widely used... If this
section
deals with such issues, then I have the following question:
I suppose the issue here is if a synthesis tool continues to support the
translate_off/translate_on meta-comments, can the synthesis tool still
claim
IEEE standard compatibility? (Assuming it also supports the IEEE
standard
suggested way.)
If the answer to the question is yes, then the standard probably wants
to use
"Unsupported features used among some current synthesis tools" instead.
PJM18: same issue as in JL07 - change to "two-dimensional array of reg
data type"
PJM33: maybe change the word "go" to "become"
Just my 2 cents worth of comments. I hope some will become helpful.
Thanks to
the ballot response team's hard work for providing the rest of us a much
easier
task.
Jenjen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Aug 21 2002 - 14:17:10 PDT