RE: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome

Ditto the remarks about a busy day.

I can't make a Friday meeting. But if I'm the only one, then go ahead without me.

Rob Slater

Freescale Semiconductor

  _____

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Warmke, Doug
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 06:59
To: Francoise Martinolle; SV-CC
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome

Francoise,

You had a busy day today!

Thanks for all the work.

I'm available on Friday for a meeting anytime before 2pm EST.

Are we going to try and pass the remaining immediate priority

items (62, 53, 56, and 77)? I would suggest we give it a shot.

Regards,

Doug

  _____

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:07 PM
To: 'SV-CC'
Subject: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome

I attended the 1800 WG meeting today.

The errata we passed today (in our CC meeting) were stated as passed during the WG today.

However since the champions recommended to the WG that these not be voted on (for various reasons),

the 1800 WG decided that they would wait for the January 5th to vote on them. Note that the champions

meet next week on the 22 of December and will review those proposals and provide their recommendation

for the January 5 th meeting.

The PLI 1.0 section was voted on and our recommendation to deprecate it and delete it from the LRM

was passed. However there was some arguing from Alec against removing the sections relative to PLI1.0.

Additionnally, Karen asked me if there was any CC errata which in "my opinion" needed to be resolved before

going to ballot. I felt that the only one to my knowledge which needs a standard specification is the fullname

for packages and objects declared in packages. My opinion was based on the discussion we had today in our

meeting. She gave us until Friday evening to agree on a proposal for this so that the proposal can be reviewed

by the champions on the 22nd. I will be making a proposal for 56 by email to try to get consensus.

Then Charles or I will be calling up a meeting before Friday to discuss and formerly vote on the sent proposal.

If we fail to pass this proposal then the behaviour will be unspecified by the standard ( and I think that this is bad).

The errata which are still outstanding with immediate priority are:

  62 (has informal proposal in description)

  53 (has formal proposal)

  56 (needs revised proposal)

  77 (has informal simple proposal in description)

I will shortly send an email to request time/date for discussion item 56. Please try to be available.

Francoise

       '

 
Received on Wed Dec 15 21:40:07 2004