- Previous message: Michael McNamara: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Maybe in reply to: Stuart Sutherland: "Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Next in thread: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Reply: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Precedence: bulk
I agree with Gord. The fastest full LRM update wouldn't be soon enough for
us anyway. We will be relying on ETF/VSG decisions for our implementations.
Trying to rush out an LRM really won't be much help.
It would be nice to have a publicly available document with the existing
substantive changes in it. This would help keep the vendors who aren't
participating in the process from diverging too far. And if a user questions
an implementation that is based on the decisions so far, it would be nice to
have a semi-official document to provide a de facto standard.
Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
- Next message: Brad Pierce: "errata/290: Escaping keyword identifiers"
- Previous message: Michael McNamara: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Maybe in reply to: Stuart Sutherland: "Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Next in thread: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Reply: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com: "Re: Ship a revised Verilog-2001"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 16:38:18 PST
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.