RE: [sv-cc] vpiObj, vpiObjectVal

It goes even back to 1364-1995, but I don't think that necessarily means that the editor needs a formal Mantis issue for it.

By the way, the reference to vpiObj in the subject field of my email was also a mistake.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Vellenga [mailto:jvellenga@verizon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:59 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: SV-CC; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> Subject: Re: [sv-cc] vpiObj, vpiObjectVal
>
> It certainly looks like it.  This looks like another case of
> the dangers of having "two copies of the truth," in that all
> the information in Table 38-5 is also in Table 38-3.  My
> guess is that someone updated Table 38-3 without realizing
> that they needed to change 38-5 as well.
>
> Although I no longer have access to the older versions of the
> standard, I'm guessing that this problem has been there for a
> while, and hence needs a new Mantis item.  Yes?
>
> Regards,
> Jim Vellenga
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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