[sv-ac] RE: Review of implemented Mantis items

Hi,

I believe that when you change the status to Editor, you should NOT change the "Assigned To" field to the name of the editor.
That field is for the subcommittee member who is responsible for the proposal, and remains constant as the item advances through the resolution, approval, and implementation process.

Regards,
Shalom

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Little Scott-B11206
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:34 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: [sv-ac] RE: Review of implemented Mantis items

Done

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 6:13 AM
To: Little Scott-B11206; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: Review of implemented Mantis items

Hi Scott,

Please, set 2732 to Editor status and add a note describing what is wrong there.

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: Little Scott-B11206 [mailto:B11206@freescale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:20
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: RE: Review of implemented Mantis items

Hi Dmitry:

Below are the results of my mantis review.

Thanks,
Scott

2362 - Ok
2479 - Ok
2571 - Ok
2732 - "global clocking future-sampled value functions" is written instead of "global clocking future sampled value functions" There is an added '-' that I don't believe is correct. The numbers are in a Courier font which I believe is incorrect.
3020 - Ok

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:51 AM
To: 'sv-ac@eda-stds.org'
Subject: [sv-ac] Review of implemented Mantis items

Hi all,

Below is the list of Mantis items implemented in the Draft 1800-11-0001-00 along, and their owners. Item owners, please, review your item implementation and notify me when ready. If the implementation is incorrect, put a note with the problem explanation and set the item status to Editor. If the implementation is correct, do nothing.

Thanks,
Dmitry

2353 Anupam 'classes' missing from description
2871 Anupam Clause 16 does not forbid assertion local variables within clocking event expressions
2934 Anupam Precedence and associativity of case operator is not shown in the table
2291 Ashok the description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
2330 Ashok Clarify that number_of_ticks argument to $past must be compile-time constant
2452 Dana No vacuity information about synchronous aborts
2904 Dana Clarify when disable iff condition must occur relative to starting and ending of an attempt
3134 Dana sequence and property range parameters are erroneously defined
2551 Dmitry trivial example error
2552 Dmitry Confusing comments regarding nexttime operator
2927 Dmitry Precedence between sequence/property operator and normal expression operator
2205 Erik $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous
2938 Erik Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
1627 Manisha 17.16: clarify that expect statement not allowed in functions
2485 Samik terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
2558 Samik Restriction inside checker construct
2362 Scott 16.14 mention of assertion control system tasks is unconnected
2479 Scott Annex F.5.2.1 conflicts with changes from 2434
2571 Scott confusing assertion clock inference rule
2732 Scott Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4. Future value change
3020 Scott Recursive property Restriction 4 is not consistent between Clause 16.13.17 and Annex F.7
2494 Tapan 37.44 Assertion diagram missing restrict
2955 Tapan Checker example is wrong
2722 Tom Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.