RE: [sv-ac] ballot results for 1682

Hi all,

I am attaching the version containing the fixes adressing Yaniv's
comments. Other comments have already been addressed.

Thanks,
Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:32 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] ballot results for 1682

Hi Folks:

Our e-mail vote on 1682 that closed on 2007-10-02 failed.

Please see the results below, including the rational for
negative vote and friendly amendments.

J.H.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Ballot on Mantis 1682

- Called on 2007-09-25, final ballots due by 2007-10-02 T 23:59-07:00.


yv[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
 n[---------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
yv[xx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
 t[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale -
Chair)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel -
Co-Chair)
 v[xx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor
Graphics)
 n[-----------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
 n[---------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
 v[xxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson (Jasper)
 n[--------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
yv[-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman (Intel)
 n[-x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
yv[xx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
nv[xxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
   |------------------------------------ attendance on 2007-09-25
 |-------------------------------------- voting eligibility for this
ballot
|--------------------------------------- email ballots received


	Legend:
		x = attended
		- = missed
		r = represented
		. = not yet a member
		v = valid voter (2 out of last 3)
		n = not valid voter
                t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Negative vote rationale:

[TT]

The following paragraph is still not clear:

    An action block of an assertion containing next value functions
    is performed at the time when all the next values are actually
    computed, that is, at the global clocking tick that follows the
    assertion clock tick at which the final boolean expression of the
    assertion is evaluated.

    First, the paragraph only says that the "action block" is delayed.
For
    accuracy, it should say that the "evaluation" of the assertion is
delayed
    as well.

    My suggestion:

    An action block of an assertion containing next value functions
    is performed at the global clocking tick that follows the
    assertion clock tick at which the final boolean expression of the
    assertion is evaluated.  This allows the evaluation of the next
value
    functions to be delayed until the after the next values of the
signals
    referenced have been computed.
	
   In addition, we could add further explanation that in a simulation
context,
   the function $future_gclk(sig) could be evaluated by the equivalent
   (@$gobal_clk ##1 $past_gclk(sig))

I found this sentence from the first paragraph a little cryptic and hard
to
follow.

    These functions include the capability to access the sampled value
at
    the previous (resp. the next) global clock tick that precedes (resp.
    follows) immediately the timestep at which the function is called.

I don't think the "resp." abbreviation is good style for a standard. How
about:

    These functions include the capability to access the sampled value
at
    the global clock tick that immediately precedes or
    follows the timestep at which the function is called.	


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Friendly amendments:

[DB]

   Page 2 at the first example replace
   
   "(a, v = a) ##1 [->1] b == v;"
   
   With
   
   "(a, v = a) ##1 c[->1] b == v;"=20


[YF]

   Table 16-25:
   At timepoint 10: I think $steady_gclk(sig) should have the value 1'b0
   At timepoint 80::I think $rising_gclk(sig) should be 1'b0=20
   
   And as Doron and Ed noted this syntax in the following sequence isn't
   legal:
   (a, v = a) ##1 [->1] b == v;
   
   I think however that it should better be changed to:
   (a, v = d) ##1 c[->1] ##1 (b == v);
   otherwise the usage of local variable doesn't make much sense (though
   its legal syntax)

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, 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.