RE: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150

No, it was on 1769.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:17 PM
> To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I do not understand the comment from [SB]. Was it related to 2150 ?
> 
> Manisha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:02 PM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150
> 
> Hi Folks:
> 
> Our ballot on 2150 failed due to negative vote.
> 
> See the results below.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------
> Ballot on Mantis 2150
> 
> - Called on 2008-01-15, final ballots due by 2008-01-21 T 23:59-08:00.
> 
> yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan
> (Intel)
> yv[xxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
> (Synopsys)     
>  n[----------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani
> (Synopsys)
>  v[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
> (Freescale)
>  t[xxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John 
> Havlicek (Freescale - Chair) 
> yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry 
> Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)  
> v[xxxxx-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[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson
> (Jasper)
>  n[---------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller
> (Freescale)
> yv[xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper
> (Cadence)
> yv[xxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman
> (Intel)
>  n[-------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej 
> Singh (Mentor
> Graphics)
> nv[xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara
> (Synopsys)
> yv[xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom 
> Thatcher (Sun
> Microsystems)
>    |------------------------------------------------- attendance on
> 2008-01-15
>  |--------------------------------------------------- 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
> 
> [BT]
> 
> I vote no. Proposal adds unnecessary restrictions, we need 
> not make such accommodations for action blocks -- the rest of 
> SV TB does not have this.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------
> Friendly Amendments
> 
> [DK]
> 
> * Region names should be capitalized. "the reactive region" 
> -> "the Reactive region" throughout the proposal.
> 
> * The LRM usually does not explain limitation reasons, 
> therefore I believe that the explanation why the automatic 
> variables are disallowed is redundant.
> 
> E.g.,
> 
> "Since the action block of an assert statement executes in 
> the reactive region, the automatic variables referenced in 
> the action block may not be valid when the action block 
> executes. Therefore the action block of an assert statement 
> shall not refer to an automatic variable declared outside of 
> the action block with an exception: An automatic loop 
> iterator variable may be used in the action block of the 
> assert statement that is within a for or foreach loop."
> 
> may be rewritten as:
> 
> "The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to 
> an automatic variable declared outside of the action block 
> with an exception: An automatic loop iterator variable may be 
> used in the action block of the assert statement that is 
> within a for or foreach loop."
> 
> Also, should the part of a sentence after a colon be 
> capitalized? Maybe to rewrite it as:
> 
> "The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to 
> an automatic variable declared outside of the action block 
> with the following
> exception: an automatic loop iterator variable may be used in 
> the action block of the assert statement that is within a for 
> or foreach loop."
> 
> * The same exception (about for loops) should apply to clause 16.10.
> 
> [SB]
> 
> The LRM also says in 3.10,
> "Although this standard defines the results of compilation 
> and elaboration, the compilation and elaboration steps are 
> not required to be distinct phases in an implementation. 
> Throughout this standard the terms compilation, compile and 
> compiler normally refer to the combined compilation and 
> elaboration process. So, for example, when the standard 
> refers to a "compile time error", an implementation is 
> permitted to report the error at any time prior to the start 
> of simulation."
> 
> But it would be confusing to use 'elaboration' and then use 
> 'compilation' in the more general sense.
> 
> [TT]
> 
> First paragraph:  "with an exception:"  --> "with one exception"
> 
> Same in the added paragraph for 16.14.2, and in 16.14.3
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 

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