Sorry, I misunderstood you on that one... I agree, there is no need to reinvent the wheel, and that was certainly not the intension of this thread. However, we should still evaluate whether it is worth in the short term to "borrow" these capabilities from SV, or just add a small feature to $table_model. Arpad ==================================================== -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Cameron [mailto:kevin@sonicsinc.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:23 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad Cc: verilog-ams Subject: Re: $table_model() requirements Muranyi, Arpad wrote: > Good luck convincing a tool vendor to support > something that is not in a specification... > > Arpad > ============================================= > What I meant was: rather than defining new stuff unique to AMS, we should adopt whatever bits of SV are required as part of the AMS standard - i.e. just copy and paste from one LRM to the other. Assuming that SV and AMS are to be integrated anyway, that's the minimum work. Kev. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon May 14 14:29:35 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 14 2007 - 14:29:43 PDT