[sv-cc] RE: Compatibility proposal uploaded for Mantis item #1385

It is likely an omission from the data model sections, but it
appears in 27.18 of 1364-2001 (the text for vpi_handle_by_multi_index):

  "This function can be used to access all objects whose property
vpiMultiArray is
TRUE. This routine shall only provide access to a bit or word of the
parent object."

This seems to imply that it was legal on the objects that could be
multi-dimensional arrays (the object types I listed).
Regards,
Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Vellenga 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:42 AM
To: Chuck Berking; 'sv-cc@eda-stds.org'
Cc: Charlie Dawson
Subject: RE: Compatibility proposal uploaded for Mantis item #1385

Chuck, your document says that the property vpiMultiArray
has meaning for vpiIntegerVar, vpiTimeVar, vpiRealVar,
and vpiRegArray.  I was unable to find any place in
either IEEE Std 1364-2001 or IEEE Std 1364-2005 where
it appeared as a property of any of those objects.  Could
you identify where that is?

Thanks,
Jim

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Architect                              (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: Chuck Berking 
]Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:19 PM
]To: 'sv-cc@eda-stds.org'
]Cc: Charlie Dawson; Jim Vellenga
]Subject: Compatibility proposal uploaded for Mantis item #1385
]
]All-
]If possible, before our meeting tomorrow, please see my compatibility
]proposal writeup I just uploaded to Mantis #1385 (attached here also),
]which I would like to use to restart discussions on this 
]topic.  I would
]like to finalize this at or by our face-to-face meeting.
]
]FYI- I have added a compatibility table- with a few more items and
]details, including a provision for 1364-2005 mode which I firmly
]believe we need.  The standards addition section is very minimal,
]but is likely close to all that is needed to be formalized in the
]LRM context.  It is based on Abi & Mike's proposals begun last fall.
]
]All feedback welcome!
]Regards,
]Chuck
]

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.