[sv-ac] ballot result for 1682

Hi Folks:

Our e-mail ballot for 1682 failed.  See the results 
below.

J.H.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballot on Mantis 1682

- Called on 2007-10-23, final ballots due at 2007-10-30 T 23:59-07:00.

nv[xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
 n[------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
 v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
 t[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
nv[xxxxx-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[xxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson (Jasper)
 n[-----------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
 v[-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
yv[-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman (Intel)
 n[----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
yv[xxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
   |--------------------------------------- attendance on 2007-10-23
 |----------------------------------------- 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 or 3/4 overall)
		n = not valid voter
                t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale for Negative Votes

[DB]

   There should be a section in the proposal that add description of the
   new functions in F.4.

[MK]

   1. The proposal says: "$steady_gclk(expression) returns true if the
   sampled value of the expressions does not change at the next global
   clock tick. Otherwise it returns false."
   
   I think it should have same type of wording as $falling_gclk has (i.e.
   if the sampled value of the LSB of the expression ....)
   
   2. The proposal says: "The use of these functions is limited to
   assertion features only. It shall be an error to invoke these functions
   outside of property expressions, this also implies that they shall not
   be used in assertion action blocks."
   Is 'assertion features' defined any where ? I believe these functions
   can be used in sequences. Because the second sentence says that these
   can not be used outside of property expressions. May be the sentence
   should be something like " These functions shall be used only in the
   concurrent assertion boolean expressions".
   
   3. It says: "Additional restrictions are imposed on the usage of the
   global clocking future sampled value functions: they shall not be nested
   and they shall not be used in assertions containing sequence match items
   (see 16.9, 16.10)."=20
   
   So, these restrictions are only for future sampled value functions. Not
   for past ones. How would a nested $past() work ? Either way it needs
   more clarity.
   
   4. It says "An evaluation attempt of an assertion containing global
   clocking future sampled value functions ends at the global clocking tick
   that follows the assertion clock tick at which the final boolean
   expression of the assertion
   is evaluated,".
   
   I think there should be a '.' instead of ',' at the end of this
   statement. Also it kind of implies that all the attempts of a assertion
   containing future sampled value function will end at the next global
   clock tick. This may not be the case if the last Boolean expression
   (which caused failure or pass) does not contain future sampled value
   function.=20
   
   In the same paragraph it is using ":", is that according to the standard
   ? I am not sure.

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