[sv-ac] RE: ballot result on 1769

Hi,

Please find attached an updated proposal for #1769. Hopefully it takes
care of the amendments. Also posted on Mantis.

Best regards,
Ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:53 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Cc: doron.bustan@intel.com; eduard.cerny@synopsys.COM;
> yaniv.fais@freescale.com; john.havlicek@freescale.com;
> dmitry.korchemny@intel.com; Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com;
> johan.martensson@jasper-da.com; piper@cadence.com;
> erik.seligman@intel.com; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM;
> thomas.thatcher@sun.com
> Subject: ballot result on 1769
> 
> Hi Folks:
> 
> Our ballot on 1769 failed due to negative vote.  There were also
> friendly amendments.
> 
> See details below.
> 
> J.H.
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
> Ballot on Mantis 1769
> 
> - Called on 2008-02-21, final ballots due by 2008-02-24 T 23:59-08:00.
> - Please ensure that John Havlicek receives your ballot.
> 
> yv[x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron
Bustan
> (Intel)
> yv[xxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard
Cerny
> (Synopsys)
>  n[---------------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra
> Dudani (Synopsys)
>  v[xxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
> (Freescale)
>  t[xxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John
Havlicek
> (Freescale - Chair)
> yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry
> Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
> nv[-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)
>  v[x-x--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan
> Martensson (Jasper)
>  n[--------------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel
Miller
> (Freescale)
>  v[xxxxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper
> (Cadence)
>  v[-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)
> yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom
Thatcher
> (Sun Microsystems)
>    |------------------------------------------------------ attendance
on
> 2008-02-19
>  |-------------------------------------------------------- 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
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
> Rationale for Negative Vote
> 
> [MK]
> 
> I vote 'no' as this proposal needs to align with 1641 (which has
already
> made these system tasks usable in regular code). Now that 1769 uses
the
> same names for the tasks, it needs to change accordingly.
> 
> As per 1641:
> 
> These tasks already appear as 'severity system tasks' in 19.1. In the
> description of these tasks, we show two possibilities of their usage:
1.
> In assertions and 2. In regular code.
> 
> Now this proposal is introducing same tasks as elaboration time tasks.
> Since these tasks are already there in the LRM, I think this proposal
> should not create a new category of tasks. The new category was fine
> when the names were different.=20
> 
> Just like 1641, this proposal should show another usage of these tasks
> in 19.9 and also enhance the syntax for elab time usage.
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
> Friendly Amendments
> 
> [LP]
> 
> a) "$ warning" should be "$warning" in 19.1 (note the extra space)
> 
> b) the format of the dash list is not consistent with other places in
> the standard, for example see 19.4.2. The indent makes it easier to
> read.
> 
> [DB]
> 
> I vote yes on 1769 with the friendly amendment to change the default
> value of the parameter in the first example to something between 1 and
> 8.

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