RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review

That's up to the committee if they want to remove it altogether. If no
one has implemented it or seen any usage yet, then it might be safe to
remove it. I'm all for making thing simpler when given the chance.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: Eduard Cerny; Rich, Dave; john.havlicek@freescale.com
> Cc: Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM; piper@cadence.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> We'll hear from Dave then. I kinda assumed it goes without saying that
> removing is not an option even if deemed needless.
> 
> THX.
> -Bassam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny
> To: Bassam Tabbara; 'Dave_Rich@mentor.com' <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>;
> 'john.havlicek@freescale.com' <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
> CC: 'Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com' <Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com>;
> 'piper@cadence.com' <piper@cadence.com>; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
<sv-ac@eda-
> stds.org>
> Sent: Wed Feb 21 11:43:24 2007
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> 
> But if I understood correctly, Dave did not want even sequences and
> properties in cb. This is why my question.
> ed
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bassam Tabbara
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:42 PM
> > To: Eduard Cerny; 'Dave_Rich@mentor.com';
> > 'john.havlicek@freescale.com'
> > Cc: 'Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com'; 'piper@cadence.com';
> > 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > We shouldn't. I think the point is no need to put asserts in
> > there as proposal.
> >
> > THX.
> > -Bassam
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduard Cerny <edcerny@synopsys.COM>
> > To: Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>;
> > john.havlicek@freescale.com <john.havlicek@freescale.com>
> > CC: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM
> > <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; piper@cadence.com
> > <piper@cadence.com>; sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> > Sent: Wed Feb 21 11:37:51 2007
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> >
> > But the LRM already allows sequences and properties to be in
> > cb. Can we
> > remove them now?
> > ed
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:34 PM
> > > To: john.havlicek@freescale.com
> > > Cc: Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM; piper@cadence.com;
> > sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1547 review
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It may be that there is no point in putting sequence or property
> > > > declarations in a clocking block, in which case this proposal
> > > > would be unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > J.H.
> > > >
> > > [DR>] That was my point.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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.