RE: [sv-ac] Call to vote: Due August 22

Hi Tom,

But this statement has been deleted in the new proposal. I also checked this section in the LRM. Let me know if I misinterpret something.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J Thatcher [mailto:thomas.thatcher@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 01:38
To: Korchemny, Dmitry
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Call to vote: Due August 22

On 08/16/11 13:22, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:

>
>
> Mantis 3033 __x__ Yes ____ No
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
>
> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5325&type=bug
> <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5325&type=bu
> g>
>
17.5 checker procedures:
The text says, "An =always= procedure in a checker body . . ."
Since the "always" is set in courier type, one would assume that it is referring to the "always" keyword, not to a class of procedures including always, always_ff, always_latch, and always_comb. Yet, always is the one example of this class that will not be allowed within checkers after this proposal is passed. Set the two Courier type always to regular font.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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