RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote on Additional Issues

Steve,

Some explanatory notes re your comments on IR2028:

In the case of initialization, there may be force or deposit updates
scheduled from a previous VHPI call. The only way to get back to
initialization after that is to do a reset, in which case scheduled forces
and deposits are discarded.

In the case of the simulation cycle, scheduled forces and deposits are
applied as part of driver and signal update. The scheduling referred to is
not for a specific time, but for the next update phase after the call to the
vhpi_put_value function. Once the update is performed, the scheduled force
or deposit should no longer be scheduled.

This is all defined in the draft LRM in clauses 12.6.2 and 20.4.2. Without
reference to those clauses, the excerpt in the LRM probably doesn't make a
lot of sense in isolation.

Hope this clarifies things.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.           www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                           VoIP: 0871270078@sip.internode.on.net
Stirling, SA 5152                    Phone (mobile):  +61 414 709 106
Australia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Stephen
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 December 2005 15:43
> To: Jim Lewis; VHDL-200x
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote on Additional Issues
> 
> 
> Here are my votes.
> 
> -Steve Bailey 
> 
> > Issue      Approve       Negative       Negative      Abstain
> >                           with comment   no comment
> > 
> > 2028    Clarify simulation cycle.
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2028.txt
> > 2028       ____          ____            ____         ____
> 
> Negative with comment
> The proposed resolution seems fine except for one issue which 
> in my mind is significant.  The following sentence is used 
> multiple times:  "If a force or deposit was scheduled for any 
> driver/signal, the force or deposit is no longer scheduled 
> for the driver/signal."
> 
> I have no clue what this sentence means.  If I take it at 
> face value, it seems that any force or deposit is simply 
> discarded and not applied. However, I doubt that that is what 
> is intended.  Until this sentence is properly 
> defined/specified or somehow explained as to its meaning, I 
> cannot vote positive.
> 
> > 2043    Numeric VALUE attribute parameter can't have sign
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2043.txt
> > 2043       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> Positive
> 
> > 2050    Definition of S'Last_Value was apparently broken in 1993
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2050.txt
> > 2050       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2062    Range staticness
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2062.txt
> > 2062       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2064    Type conversion of unconstrained output in a port map
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2064.txt
> > 2064       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2065    OTHERS in aggregates too restrictive
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2065.txt
> > 2065       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2068    Entity instantiation with space before the entity name
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2068.txt
> > 2068       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2069   Visibility of generics in block configurations
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2069.txt
> > 2069       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> > 2071   Indexed name in case expression
> > http://www.eda-twiki.org/isac/IRs-VHDL-2002/IR2071.txt
> > 2071       ____          ____            ____         ____
> > 
> >             Comment:
> Positive
> 
> -Steve Bailey
>