Re: errata/237: PROPOSAL - A.7.5.3: scalar_timing_check_expressions has redundancies

From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 09:19:09 PST

  • Next message: Brad Pierce: "errata/292: 12.3.3 : net declaration before port declaration"

    Precedence: bulk

    There is no change to the BNF because expression is already there in the
    first production, and
    everything else can be derived from there. There is no change required to
    the source test because
    it has some language in there that indicates that for multibit expressions
    it takes the low order bit.

    The VCS sense is that this is just simplifying the BNF. Not changing
    anything.

    K

    At 11:35 AM 3/4/03 +0200, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com wrote:
    >Precedence: bulk
    >
    >If this is still in the investigation phase,
    >then I think it is premature to already move the issue to the PROPOSAL state.
    >
    >Furthermore, it seems to me that a change in the BNF requires substantial
    >changes to the text as well.
    >
    >Shalom
    >
    >
    >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Karen Pieper wrote:
    >
    > > I did. I checked with the VCS team and it matches their
    > behavior. Charles
    > > is still checking on Cadences.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 09:20:35 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.