RE: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of SCE-MI 1.1 and SCE-MI 2.0 model mixing

I agree with this. We definitely need to talk about the SCEMI 1.1 clock
macros and their relationship to SCEMI 2.0, whether it's possible to have a
SCEMI 2.0 emulatable testbench without them, etc.




---------------------------------------
---    Russ Vreeland (949)926-6143  ---
---    vreeland@broadcom.com        ---
---    Senior Principal Engineer    ---
---    Broadcom Corporation         ---
---------------------------------------



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf 
> Of Per Bojsen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:03 AM
> To: itc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Action Item: Draft proposal for prevention of 
> SCE-MI 1.1 and SCE-MI 2.0 model mixing
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> > 4. No SCE-MI 1.2 imported function calls can make calls
>                ^^^
> 
> I'm sure you meant 2.0 here :-)
> 
> So I noticed you used the convention proposed by Russ to use 
> 2.0 to refer to the features that are new in 2.0 and 1.1/1.x 
> to refer to the old features that are reatined in SCE-MI 2.0 
> for backwards compatibility reasons, right?  It would be nice 
> to have a figure in the preamble to the standard (one of the 
> introductory sections, that is) that shows the relationship 
> between 1.1 and 2.0 . . .
> 
> Per
> 
> -- 
> Per Bojsen                                Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com>
> Zaiq Technologies, Inc.                   WWW:   
> http://www.zaiqtech.com
> 78 Dragon Ct.                             Tel:   781 721 8229
> Woburn, MA 01801                          Fax:   781 932 7488
> 
> 
>