RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

Another possibility for 4125 is to say that the configuration in effect for the bind statement controls the target_scope as well as influencing the elaboration of the bind instaniations. This is an alternative to the proposal for 1850.

From: Mark Hartoog
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

I would favor the wording change in the proposal for 1850 rather than striking the text. If we want to strike the reference to `uselib, I would be ok with that too, since that doesn't really belong in the LRM.

I'm ok with the intent of 4126. The loops might not be synthesizable or unrollable anymore, but they should still simulate in test benches.

From: Brad Pierce
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:10 AM
To: sv-xc@eda.org
Cc: Mark Hartoog
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

Hi Mark,

> http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-xc/hm/0212.html

On 4125, are you in favor of retaining the restriction in this revision, as in your proposal for http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1850 ? If there are unresolved questions about how to handle the currently restricted scenarios, that would be a safer approach.

On 4126, are you OK with the intent of the for-loop enhancement?

-- Brad

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