[sv-ac] Email ballot result (Due 2 March)

Below are the results of the email ballot:

2476 2804

Ashok Bhatt

Laurence Bisht

Yes No Eduard Cerny

Yes No Ben Cohen

Yes Yes Tapan Kapoor

Yes Yes Scott Little

Manisha Kulshrestha

Yes Yes Anupam Prabhakar

Yes Yes Erik Seligman

Yes No Samik Sengupta

Tom Thatcher

Ballot results:

2476 - Passed with friendly amendments

2804 - Failed

Comments
Ben:
(2804) This is not a strong NO.
I suggested (in a separate email) some qualifiers as to which specific rule is obeyed or violated. Can we add those and review the proposal again?

Ed:
I vote no on 2804, as I find rules 1 and 2 under (c) a little strange

c) Within the event control of the procedure, there is exactly one event expression that satisfies both of
the following conditions:
1) The event expression consists solely of an event variable, consists solely of a clocking block event, or is of the form edge_identifier expression1 [ iff expression2 ] and is not a proper subexpression of an event expression of this form.
2) No term in expression1 appears anywhere else in the body of the procedure. other than as a clocking event or within assertion statements.

suppose that in (1) it is an event variable. According to (c) it has to satisfy both 1 and 2. How can an event variable ever satisfy (2)? there is no expression1 or edge_identifier.

Scott:
(2476) Assuming that the following small issues are handled.

Is the statement:
- $countbits (expression, 2'b1) returns the number of bits in expression having values 1 or 0.
I believe it is more clear if it reads 2'b10.

$isunknown is also provided for convenience and backward compatibility. Why is not introduced and the equivalence defined with the rest of those functions?

In the first part of the proposal the Sampled Value System Functions is listed as section 20.13 and then in the last section it is listed as 20.14. I think it would be best to be consistent within the proposal. Either assume the new section has been inserted or assume it is has not. I am not sure which is best.

Samik:
I agree with Ed that the rule (c)(2) should be clarified for event variable or clocking block event. It seems to me that in such cases the intent is that (2) does not apply, but I think that that should be explicitly mentioned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.