RE: [sv-cc] Joint proposal for SV-CC #50 ready for review

Jim,

Thanks for the observations.
I made all the changes you suggested.
E.11.5 was an especially good catch.
I copy-and-pasted from Annex F's function definitions
to fix the oversight.

BTW, I have run the new svdpi.h file from Annex F through our
regressions and it works perfectly in backwards-compatible 3.1a mode.
So there should be no silly typos or oversights in Annex F.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Vellenga [mailto:vellenga@cadence.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:22 AM
> To: Warmke, Doug; sv-cc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Joint proposal for SV-CC #50 ready for review
>
> Doug, I didn't have time to absorb everything, but
> I would pass on a few nits:
>
> In productions for dpi_spec_string, use "straight quotes"
> instead of "smart quotes".
>
> In new E.12.1, remove extra space from "implementation' s".
>
> In new E.11.5, I think you want to change the function names
> as well for consistency with the new non-deprecated functions
> in Annex F.
>
> Regards,
> Jim V.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381
> Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636
> Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com
> 270 Billerica Rd
> Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
> "We all work with partial information."
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ] -----Original Message-----
> ] From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On
> ] Behalf Of Warmke, Doug
> ] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:46 AM
> ] To: sv-cc@eda.org
> ] Subject: [sv-cc] Joint proposal for SV-CC #50 ready for review
> ]
> ] Hello SV-CC,
> ]
> ] We had our scheduled meeting at 2pm EST today to develop and
> ] review the group's response to item #50. Joao, Francoise,
> ] Bassam, and Doug attended.
> ]
> ] Doug presented a draft revision of an amended proposal
> ] for item #50. The proposal takes into account all issues
> ] raised by Synopsys and presented by Oz.
> ]
> ] The proposal also develops the interface along the lines
> ] agreed in this week's meeting, i.e. to remove the opaque
> ] handles and the vendor-specific type representations that
> ] are used in association with 2-state and 4-state arguments.
> ]
> ] The proposal has been reviewed in depth by the four of us
> ] and we are basically happy with it. I've attached it here
> ] to get a broader group review.
> ]
> ] Please look over the document and respond with any suggestions
> ] for improvement. I'll try to incorporate all suggestions into
> ] a next revision of the document.
> ]
> ] Thanks and regards,
> ] Doug
> ]
> ]
>
Received on Fri Dec 10 10:24:27 2004