Something for the agenda tomorrow. -Chas -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Questions on merged DPI clause Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:24:10 -0700 From: Stuart Sutherland <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> Reply-To: <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> Organization: Sutherland HDL, Inc. To: 'Charlie Dawson' <chas@cadence.com> Chas., So that this doesn't get lost, I want to call your attention to subclause 34.9 in the merged DPI clause. This subclause came from another part of the 1800-2005 LRM. It seems to me to be redundant with the rest of the DPI clause. I have added a margin "Question" to this effect. I have attached a copy of Clause 34 the way it will go into draft 3 of the LRM. I doubt there is time for your committee to review and answer the redundancy question, but you have until about 6 PM tomorrow if you do want to address the issue before draft 3 is finalized. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland Sutherland HDL, Inc. stuart@sutherland-hdl.com 503-692-0898 -- Charles Dawson Senior Engineering Manager NC-Verilog Team Cadence Design Systems, Inc. 270 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 (978) 262 - 6273 chas@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 08 2007 - 09:02:52 PDT