Re: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2089

Hi Dmitry,

I have made the following changes to 2089 in response to the feedback:

1.  I have made the following change to the definition of /checker body/:

Action blocks of assertions within a checker will be referred to as 
/checker action blocks/, and the rest of the checker, with the exception 
of any final block code, will be referred to as /checker body/.

2.  To clarify that variable declaration that appear within a final 
block are local to the final block, I have added the following:

Any variables defined within *final* procedures obey all the normal 
scope rules (see 22.8).


3.  I think I have fixed some of the font problems, but other instances 
may still be lurking.  I have attached both the Word document and the PDF.

Is this sufficient?

Tom

//John Havlicek wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> Our ballot on 2089 failed due to negative vote.
>
> See the results below.
>
> J.H.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ballot on Mantis 2089
>
> - Called on 2007-12-20, final ballots due by 2007-12-30 T 23:59-08:00.
>
> yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
> yv[xxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
>  n[--------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
> yv[xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
>  t[xx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
> nv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
>  v[xxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
>  n[----------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
>  n[-------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson (Jasper)
>  n[-------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
>  v[xxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
> yv[xxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman (Intel)
>  n[-----x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
> yv[xxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
> yv[xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
>    |----------------------------------------------- attendance on 2007-12-18
>  |------------------------------------------------- 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 a valid voter
>                 t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rationale for Negative Vote
>
> [DK]
>
> * A refinement of "checker body" is needed. Currently "checker body" is
> defined as everything in the checker except of assertion action blocks.
> Apparently, final procedure imposes different limitations than other
> stuff from "checker body" does. This also includes the argument passing:
> if a formal argument is used in a final procedure, a corresponding
> actual argument cannot depend on checker variables, etc.=20
> * Do you want to make a declaration of regular variables legal in
> checkers since they may be used in final procedures, or shall they
> remain illegal, and the variables used in final procedures should be
> declared there locally (I prefer the latter option)? This needs to be
> explicitly mentioned.
> * Friendly amendment: The new text should be in Times New Roman, and not
> in Arial (page 3).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Friendly Amendments
>
> [BT]
>
> - Add pointer to 2182 for VPI
> - Remove mention of VPI "may need change" -- "final" is covered in
> "process"
>
>   

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