[sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th

Right- yes, thanks- I meant Annex M.

This looks fine, and since it is so minor, I will add it to my #1477 proposal assuming no one objects.
- CB
 
 
           
Chuck Berking | Member of Consulting Staff | Cadence
P: 978.262.6522 M: 603.253.9130 www.cadence.com
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Chuck Berking; sv-cc@eda.org
Cc: Charlie Dawson
Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th

It's now Annex M, I think.
For consistency with Annex K, I thought it should appear as:

/*********************** task/function properties ***********************/ #define vpiOtherFunc 6 /* returns other types; for property vpiFuncType */

/* vpiValid and vpiValidUnknown are deprecated in 1800-2009 */
/*********************** value for vpiValid *****************************/ #define vpiValidUnknown 2 /* Validity of variable is unknown */

Regards,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Berking [mailto:berking@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:55 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-cc@eda.org
> Cc: Charlie Dawson
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
>
> Shalom-
> Do you mean that existing Annex N text:
>
> /*********************** task/function properties
> ***********************/ #define vpiOtherFunc 6 /* returns other
> types; for property vpiFuncType */
> /* vpiValid,vpiValidTrue,vpiValidFalse are deprecated in 1800-2009 */
>
> /*********************** value for vpiValid
> *****************************/ #define vpiValidUnknown 2 /* Validity
> of variable is unknown */
>
> ... should appear as perhaps:
>
> /*********************** task/function properties
> ***********************/ #define vpiOtherFunc 6 /* returns other
> types; for property vpiFuncType */
>
> /************ value for vpiValid (deprecated in 1800-2009)
> **************/ #define vpiValidUnknown 2 /* Validity of variable is
> unknown */
>
> Let me know if this is better, and I will either create a new Mantis
> item, or add it to #1477 proposal.
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
> Chuck Berking | Member of Consulting Staff | Cadence
> P: 978.262.6522 M: 603.253.9130 www.cadence.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:36 AM
> To: Chuck Berking; sv-cc@eda.org
> Cc: Charlie Dawson
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
>
> Hi,
>
> I found a minor editorial error that entered the recirculation ballot
> version:
>
> Annex K has:
>
> /* vpiValid,vpiValidTrue,vpiValidFalse are deprecated in 1800-2009 */
> #define vpiValid 64 /* reentrant task/func frame or automatic
> variable is valid */
> #define vpiValidFalse 0
> #define vpiValidTrue 1
>
> This is OK.
>
> Annex N in Draft 8, the original ballot version, had:
>
> /* vpiValid and vpiValidUnknown are deprecated in 1800-2008 */
> /*********************** value for vpiValid
> *****************************/ #define vpiValidUnknown 2 /* Validity
> of variable is unknown */
>
> "2008" should have been changed to "2009".
>
> As a result of a confusion in Mantis 2572, this became in Draft 9, the
> recirculation ballot version:
>
> /* vpiValid,vpiValidTrue,vpiValidFalse are deprecated in 1800-2009 */
>
> /*********************** value for vpiValid
> *****************************/ #define vpiValidUnknown 2 /* Validity
> of variable is unknown */
>
> That is, the mention of vpiValidUnknown was replaced by a copy-paste
> of the other comment about vpiValidTrue and vpiValid False.
>
> This should be corrected.
>
> In addition, the comment line about deprecation should be separated
> from the previous line by an empty line so as to avoid looking like it
> is a continuation of the preceding line.
>
> Regards,
> Shalom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> > Chuck Berking
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:48 PM
> > To: sv-cc@eda.org
> > Cc: Charlie Dawson
> > Subject: [sv-cc] FW: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December
> > 13th
> >
> > Taking another look at the deprecation issue & 2651- rather than
> > attempting an ad-hoc addition of vpiInterfaceDecl, I would be
> > willing to create a new C.2.7 section (as part of #1477 proposal)
> > organized
> as
> > follows:
> >
> > C.2.7 VPI definitions
> >
> > C.2.7.1 vpiMemory object type
> >
> > C.2.7.2 vpiMemoryWord object type
> >
> > C.2.7.3 vpiArray property
> >
> > C.2.7.4 vpiValid property
> >
> > C.2.7.5 vpiInterfaceDecl transition type
> >
> > While this addition is technically outside the scope of #1477, I do
> > not yet see a way around creating a new section for these items in
> > order to provide a context for vpiInterfaceDecl.
> >
> > I welcome your feedback (any others VPI defs I'm missing ?).
> > - CB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.