Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Poll on Issue 1.9 (Michael's Inclusion proposal)
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 16:44:33 PST
Can I have a line-item vote ?
I vote (Y)es on part 1 and part 2, the flexibility is warranted.
As for part 3 I vote (N)o I think it is premature to include this
interface spec given that we have not defined the PLI/VPI access to
design objects. The VPI access to assertions (and to a large extent
coverage as well) is governed (and optimized) from the tool side and
does not require detailed attribute spec (RW and so on...) from user. So
I vote part 3 be stricken.
-Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&D Novas Software, Inc.http://www.novas.com (408) 467-7893
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-cc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Swapnajit Mittra > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:51 PM > To: sv-cc@server.eda.org > Subject: [sv-cc] Poll on Issue 1.9 (Michael's Inclusion proposal) > > > > Poll on Issue 1.9: > The latest version is at: > http://www.eda.org/sv-cc/hm/0819.html > > Please send your comments as Y/N/A by Friday (02/21). > Members eligible to send their comments: > > Francoise Martinole > Stuart Swan > John Amouroux > John Stickley > Doug Warmke > Michael Rohleder > Kevin Cameron > Bassam Tabbara > Joao Gaeda > Andrzej Litwiniuk > > Regards, > - Swapnajit. > -- > > > -- > Swapnajit Mittra > Project VeriPage ::: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 16:49:02 PST