RE: [sv-ac] Call to vote. Due July 26

 
SVDB 2938 _X_Yes ___No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2938

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4406&type=bug

SVDB 2491 _X_Yes ___No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2491

Vote to resolve as "No change required"

SVDB 3147 ___Yes _X_No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=3147

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4429&type=bug

The reason for no is that it should be clear that unique leading clock
is still required. This statement from rule 'e' is relevant for rule
'c' also.

'If a multiclocked property is the maximal property of a concurrent
assertion statement, then the property shall have a unique semantic
leading clock (see 16.17.1).'

Rule 'c' talks of inferring clock from the context while rule 'e' talks
of inferring a default clock but both of them should have similar
restrictions.

SVDB 2479 _X_Yes ___No

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2479

http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4427&type=bug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.