RE: [sv-cc] Proposal uploaded for 487

Curious,

For Note 2 of 32.34, which we're proposing to move:

vpi_user.h has a #define for vpiNotOp.

sv_vpi_user.h defines vpiImplyOp.

But I don't see a #define in either for vpiDelayedImplyOp,
vpiAndOp, vpiOrOp, vpiIfOp, or vpiIfElseOp.  Can anyone
else confirm or disconfirm this?

Was there a ballot issue on this?

And since I'm pulling on this thread, No1e 1 in 32.36
also has vpiAndOp and vpiOr (instead of vpiOrOp).  The
others from that note do appear in sv_vpi_user.h.
However, sv_vpi_user.h also defines vpiOverlapImplyOp
and vpiNonOverlapImplyOp, which are _not_ used anywhere
else in the standard!

And while Note 1 of 32.39 -- as well as the corresponding
note in the 1364 draft standard -- refer to vpiMultiConcat,
the actual definition in vpi_user.h is vpiMultiConcatOp.

Annoying.

If someone else confirms, I'll put in a Mantis item.

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 Duncan, Ralph
] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:04 PM
] To: SV-CC
] Subject: [sv-cc] Proposal uploaded for 487
] 
] 487: mentioning operand order for property-expression operations. 
] 
] I've uploaded a proposal that moves the text as suggested.  It is not 
] clear whether this really gains anything. 
] 
] Ralph 
] 
]