Re: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150

Shalom is right.  This was my mistake.  I filed it with the 
wrong item.

J.H.

> X-ExtLoop1: 1
> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,234,1199692800"; 
>    d="scan'208";a="328382945"
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:37:45 +0200
> X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150
> thread-index: Achc8t1yqLkFn0TYQt2mxxxz8CVxhwAH0QwgAATuOWA=
> From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 18:38:15.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[F31A9D80:01C85D25]
> 
> No, it was on 1769.
> 
> Shalom=20
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org=20
> > [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
> >=20
> > Hi John,
> >=20
> > I do not understand the comment from [SB]. Was it related to 2150 ?
> >=20
> > Manisha
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org=20
> > [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
> >=20
> > Hi Folks:
> >=20
> > Our ballot on 2150 failed due to negative vote.
> >=20
> > See the results below.
> >=20
> > J.H.
> >=20
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------
> > Ballot on Mantis 2150
> >=20
> > - Called on 2008-01-15, final ballots due by 2008-01-21 T 23:59-08:00.
> >=20
> > yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan
> > (Intel)
> > yv[xxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
> > (Synopsys)    =20
> >  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=20
> > Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)=20
> > yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry=20
> > Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair) =20
> > v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha=20
> > Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics) =20
> > n[------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang=20
> > Long (Mentor
> > Graphics)
> >  n[---------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph=20
> > Lu (Altera) =20
> > 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=20
> > Singh (Mentor
> > Graphics)
> > nv[xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara
> > (Synopsys)
> > yv[xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom=20
> > Thatcher (Sun
> > Microsystems)
> >    |------------------------------------------------- attendance on
> > 2008-01-15
> >  |--------------------------------------------------- voting=20
> > eligibility for this ballot
> > |---------------------------------------------------- email ballots
> > received
> >=20
> >         Legend:
> >                 x =3D attended
> >                 - =3D missed
> >                 r =3D represented
> >                 . =3D not yet a member
> >                 v =3D valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4 overall)
> >                 n =3D not a valid voter
> >                 t =3D chair eligible to vote only to make or break a =
> tie
> >=20
> >=20
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------
> > Rationale for Negative Vote
> >=20
> > [BT]
> >=20
> > I vote no. Proposal adds unnecessary restrictions, we need=20
> > not make such accommodations for action blocks -- the rest of=20
> > SV TB does not have this.
> >=20
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------
> > Friendly Amendments
> >=20
> > [DK]
> >=20
> > * Region names should be capitalized. "the reactive region"=20
> > -> "the Reactive region" throughout the proposal.
> >=20
> > * The LRM usually does not explain limitation reasons,=20
> > therefore I believe that the explanation why the automatic=20
> > variables are disallowed is redundant.
> >=20
> > E.g.,
> >=20
> > "Since the action block of an assert statement executes in=20
> > the reactive region, the automatic variables referenced in=20
> > the action block may not be valid when the action block=20
> > executes. Therefore the action block of an assert statement=20
> > shall not refer to an automatic variable declared outside of=20
> > the action block with an exception: An automatic loop=20
> > iterator variable may be used in the action block of the=20
> > assert statement that is within a for or foreach loop."
> >=20
> > may be rewritten as:
> >=20
> > "The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to=20
> > an automatic variable declared outside of the action block=20
> > with an exception: An automatic loop iterator variable may be=20
> > used in the action block of the assert statement that is=20
> > within a for or foreach loop."
> >=20
> > Also, should the part of a sentence after a colon be=20
> > capitalized? Maybe to rewrite it as:
> >=20
> > "The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to=20
> > an automatic variable declared outside of the action block=20
> > with the following
> > exception: an automatic loop iterator variable may be used in=20
> > the action block of the assert statement that is within a for=20
> > or foreach loop."
> >=20
> > * The same exception (about for loops) should apply to clause 16.10.
> >=20
> > [SB]
> >=20
> > The LRM also says in 3.10,
> > "Although this standard defines the results of compilation=20
> > and elaboration, the compilation and elaboration steps are=20
> > not required to be distinct phases in an implementation.=20
> > Throughout this standard the terms compilation, compile and=20
> > compiler normally refer to the combined compilation and=20
> > elaboration process. So, for example, when the standard=20
> > refers to a "compile time error", an implementation is=20
> > permitted to report the error at any time prior to the start=20
> > of simulation."
> >=20
> > But it would be confusing to use 'elaboration' and then use=20
> > 'compilation' in the more general sense.
> >=20
> > [TT]
> >=20
> > First paragraph:  "with an exception:"  --> "with one exception"
> >=20
> > Same in the added paragraph for 16.14.2, and in 16.14.3
> >=20
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous=20
> > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >=20
> >=20
> > --=20
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

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