RE: [sv-cc] uploaded proposals for 465 and 528

Francoise,

There are a couple of immediate problems with these
proposals:

(1) I don't believe that a function call can be made
to wait for an event.  So in both proposals, the
vpiWaitingProcesses should refer only to a task call,
and not to a task or function call.

(2) The proposed change for 32.10 adds and iteration
on vpiTypedef, and cites Issue #548.  The issue number
must be a typo, since #548 is an SV-BC issue dealing
with package references.  But in any event, this problem
should be handled by a separate proposal and not stuck
in with this one, since it really is not closely related.

(3) For section 32.21, this proposal should leave Note
3 alone, since we already discussed that extensively
and passed it as part of Issue 473.  Making separate
changes to Note 3 here (even if we made them consistent
with the proposal for 473) would be confusing to the
editor.

I'll write separately about a larger concern.

Regards,
Jim Vellenga


--------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Francoise Martinolle
] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:08 AM
] To: sv-cc@eda.org
] Subject: [sv-cc] uploaded proposals for 465 and 528
] 
] 465: better description of vpiWaitingProcesses
]  
] 528: fixes to the classes information model.
]  
]