[sv-ac] RE: Call to vote: Due August 15

My votes:

Mantis 3033 __X_ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3033
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5279&type=bug

Friendly amendment: we use the term 'static deferred assertion' here, which makes sense to me, but has not been defined or used before. So I think we should enhance the changes to 16.4.3 a bit:

REPLACE

A deferred assertion statement may also appear outside procedural code, used as a module_common_item.

WITH

A deferred assertion statement may also appear outside procedural code, in which case it is referred to as a static deferred assertion.

ADD at the end of the subclause
Although a static deferred assertion is treated as if inside an always_comb, it is not considered procedural code for the purpose of limitations on procedural code in checkers. See 17.3 for static deferred assertions in checkers.

Mantis 2328 __X_ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2328
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5274&type=bug

Friendly amendment:
In 16.6.3, "described in (see 16.15.6.1)." ==> "described in 16.15.6.1."

Mantis 3295 _X___ Yes ____ No
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3295<http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2328>
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5277&type=bug

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.