From: Shalom Bresticker (shalom@msil.sps.mot.com)
Date: Sun May 24 1998 - 02:30:11 PDT
BAD MSG:
I agree with Karen.
ontent-Length: 1216
X-Lines: 35
X-Status: $$$$
X-UID: 0000000477
Status: RO
Shalom Bresticker
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From owner-btf@boyd.com Sat May 23 02:02:26 1998
From: "Karen L. Pieper" <pieper@synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:56:30 -0700
To: andersn@nortel.ca
Subject: Re: Please Vote ASAP
Cc: btf@boyd.com
Anders,
I've looked over the errata you asked me to look over that passed this
week.
I have strong objections to BE20. A pullup or pulldown device is a
device that is constantly on a net fighting the other devices on the net
to pull it to a particular value. In particular, it is not a device that only
works when there are no other devices on the net but rather it is a
device that is always driving pull strength on the net. The behavior
that the requestor wants, delay included can be found in the tri0 and tri1
nets because they only drive their values when there is no other value being
driven on the net. Pull devices are another animal entirely, and given the
amount of legacy code that probably relies on its current behavior, I cannot
support a change of this magnitude. So count me as a strong no on BE 20.
The other proposals I concur with.
Thanks for the update on this week's meeting,
Karen
<p>----- End Included Message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:52:53 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.