Re: [sv-ac] mantis 1727

Hi Ed:

My opinion is that we should not be defining the preponed values 
for the time 0 slot in 17.7.

If SV-BC think that no change in the LRM is needed, that is fine
and they can just confirm your interpretation.  If not, then 
they should do some adjustment in sections 6 and 9 (perhaps elsewhere
too) to make this clearer where it is defined.

There is still the option of avoiding any commentary about 
the preponed values in the time 0 slot in 17.7 and instead
saying simply that these preponed values are returned/used
and referencing the parts of the LRM where those are clearly 
defined.

J.H.

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:59:20 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] mantis 1727
> Thread-Index: AcdJ8kYP8iYi2xj1QwWux3HZEqWqLQABKFwQ
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2007 13:59:21.0321 (UTC) FILETIME=[003EBD90:01C749F7]
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> isn't the text in the current proposal for #1550 sufficient? That was
> discussed with people on the Sv-BC committee.
> 
> ed
> =20
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On=20
> > Behalf Of John Havlicek
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:24 AM
> > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; sv-bc@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: [sv-ac] mantis 1727
> >=20
> > All:
> >=20
> > There has been confusion in SV-AC about what are
> > the preponed values of various things in the time 0 slot.
> >=20
> > I entered mantis 1727 asking for SV-BC to clarify.
> >=20
> > J.H.
> >=20
> > --=20
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >=20
> >=20

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