[sv-ac] ballot result for 2110

Hi Folks:

Our ballot on 2110 failed due to negative votes.

See the results below.

J.H.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballot on Mantis 2110

- Called on 2008-01-29, final ballots due by 2008-02-04 T 23:59-08:00.

yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
yv[xxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
 n[------------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
 v[-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
 t[xxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
nv[xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
 n[-x-------------------------------------------------] Ah-Lam Lee (Qualcomm)
 n[--------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
 n[-----------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
 n[--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson (Jasper)
 n[-----------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
yv[xxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
yv[xxxxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman (Intel)
 n[---------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
yv[x-xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
nv[xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
   |--------------------------------------------------- attendance on 2008-01-29
 |----------------------------------------------------- voting eligibility for this ballot
|------------------------------------------------------ e-mail votes 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationales for Negative Votes:

[MK]

1. I am not convinced about the motivation behind this.
2. This proposal only talks about the loop aspect for assertions in
checker. But what about other things in checkers like initial_check,
always_check, final blocks etc. Do they get multiplied based on the loop
? If a checker is in a loop then everything inside should be part of
loop and not just the assertions.

[TT]

1.  The proposal needs more detail on what happens to procedures within 
the checker when that checker is instantiated in a loop.
For example, I assume that the intet is that an always_check will be 
executed just once every triggering event.  It won't be executed 
multiple times for each pass of the loop the checker is instantiated in.
But this is not stated.  The text says only:

     "A checker in a procedural loop executes its contents for each 
possible valid set of loop control variables."

2.  Note that there will be a very interesting gotcha:  A cover property 
appearing in a checker which is instantiated in a loop will be executed 
once for every valid combination of loop control variables.  However, a 
covergroup (assuming 2088 passes) will be executed only once (If I 
understand the intent correctly), because it is triggered by its 
triggering event.  (Sounds like material for another "Gotchas" paper at 
SNUG 2009 for Stu :-)

A few more questions:

In the example at the top of page 3.  The checker formal argument is of 
type bit.  the actual args of the instances are "foo[i] |-> bar[i]",
"foo |-> bar"  Aren't these actual args of type property?

Once these points are explained clearly, the proposal should be acceptable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly Amendments:

[DB]

1. "verification statement" -> "assertion statement"
2. Example at page 2, in the name "control variable_copy" there is an  =20
   underscore missing (3 times)

[DK]

* Page 1:

" Unlike other automatic variables, a loop control variable may be
passed in as a checker input. A checker
instantiated in such a way *must* obey the following restriction:
- If a checker input port is connected to a loop control variable, that
port may only be used within
verification statement instantiations, and *cannot* be used otherwise in
the body of the checker."

--> "shall", "shall not"

* Page 3, mycheck4 example:

"v1 =3D i;" -> "v1 <=3D i;"

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