[sv-ac] ballot result on 1698

Failed due to negative votes.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Ballot on Mantis 1698

 

- Called on 2008-02-13, final ballots due by 2008-02-18 T 23:59-08:00.

- Please ensure that Dmitry Korchemny receives your ballot.

 

yv[-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan
(Intel)

yv[xxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
(Synopsys)     

 n[--------------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra
Dudani (Synopsys)

yv[xx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
(Freescale)

 t[xxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek
(Freescale - Chair)

yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry
Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)

yv[xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha
Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

 n[-x-x-------------------------------------------------] Ah-Lam Lee
(Qualcomm)

 n[----------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long
(Mentor Graphics)

 n[-------------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu
(Altera)

 n[-x--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan
Martensson (Jasper)

 n[-------------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller
(Freescale)

yv[xxxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper
(Cadence)

yv[xxxxxxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman
(Intel)

 n[-----------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh
(Mentor Graphics)

yv[xxx-xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara
(Synopsys)

nv[xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher
(Sun Microsystems)

   |----------------------------------------------------- attendance on
2008-02-12

 |------------------------------------------------------- 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

 

Comments/friendly amendments

 

TT:

 

I vote no on 1698

 

I don't quite understand the new rules for inferring clocks from 

procedural blocks.   For example:

 

In the clock inference section, what does this phrase mean???

 

            "the event expression is maximal among those of these forms"

 

Also, I want to understand better the motivation behind the changes in 

this section.

 

I have the following friendly amendments:

 

In 16.8.3, I would keep the sentence "The value of $sampled is . . ."

 

 

Also in 16.8.3,  I liked the original wording better:  "The clocking 

event is used to obtain . . ."

In my first reading, I missed the final clause of the revised sentence 

"in which a clocking event occurs" and was ready to vote no before I 

re-read the sentence.

 

Also in 1.8.3,  How about "first occurence of the clocking event", 

rather than "first simulation timestep in which the clocking event
occurs"

 

I'm also trying to come up with a more understandable replacement for

"sampled in the Preponed region of a particular timestep strictly prior

to the one in which $past is evaluated"

But I haven't come up with anything better yet.

 

DK:

 

* Page 2, top, add a trailing dot.

 

"If called in an action block of a multiclocked assertion, the leading
clock of the assertion is used"

 

MK:

 

1. I think the following should be rephrased (location of 'first' does

not look correct):

 

When these functions are called at or before the first simulation

timestep in which the clocking event occurs,

 

Should be:

 

When these functions are called at or before the simulation timestep in

which the first clocking event occurs,

 

2. The following is not clear: 2) the event expression is maximal among

those of these forms

John has already explained it in the email but the explanation needs to

go into LRM (may be by providing an example and explicitly saying why a

specific clocking event was inferred).

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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