Re: [$ieee-1850] Vunit_proposal_6.0.doc

From: Cindy Eisner <EISNER_at_.....>
Date: Sun Apr 27 2008 - 04:32:38 PDT
nss,

>The following is not addressed in not addressed by this revision.
>  a) Verification task
>           - Cadence does not agree to Cindy's proposal here.
>              A separate email will discuss that.

i have not received such an email.  was it ever sent?

regards,

cindy.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Eisner
Senior Architect, Verification Technologies

IBM Haifa Research Lab, 4th floor
Haifa University Campus
Haifa 31905, Israel
Tel: +972-4-8296-266
Fax: +972-4-8296-114
e-mail: eisner@il.ibm.com

New!  Search inside my book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Introduction-Integrated-Circuits-Systems/dp/0387353135





                                                                           
             "N.S.                                                         
             Subramanian"                                                  
             <subns@cadence.co                                          To 
             m>                        <ieee-1850@server.eda.org>          
             Sent by:                                                   cc 
             owner-ieee-1850@s                                             
             erver.eda.org                                         Subject 
                                       [$ieee-1850] Vunit_proposal_6.0.doc 
                                                                           
             23/04/2008 17:03                                              
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




 <<Vunit_proposal_6.0.doc>>
Hi SC,

Please find attached version 6.0 of the vunit proposal.

This revision addresses the following.
   a) Dmitry concerns on transitive closure of inherited vunits.
   b) Cindly's concerns on inheritance restrictions when binding
        of vunits to modules versus instances.
   c) Sitvanit's comments on pending items (mail dated 3/24)

The following is not addressed in not addressed by this revision.
  a) Verification task
           - Cadence does not agree to Cindy's proposal here.
              A separate email will discuss that.
  b) abstract keyword
           - After Dmitry's email we feel that the abstract keyword is
             redundant. It does not break backward compatibility
            as the current LRM only mentions that tools are free to
choose
            the binding of unbound vunits, not that they are bound to
            the top module of the design hierarchy.

Please review and send your comments. We can discuss the same
in the issues SC on 4/28.

thanks and regards,
nss



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

[attachment "Vunit_proposal_6.0.doc" deleted by Cindy Eisner/Haifa/IBM]


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Sun Apr 27 04:31:34 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 27 2008 - 04:31:38 PDT