Date: Mon Jun 18 2012 - 04:34:32 PDT
My votes:
3525: No
I am not convinced that the so-called problem, "(not(not x;)) becomes valid property_expr", is really problematic. The BNF today allows redundant semicolon in various places. Also, it creates the back-compatibility problem that Dmitry noted. Also, it separates 'if-else' from 'case' in the BNF, and that is not very logical. I would prefer to leave the BNF as it is unless a stronger argument can be made for changing it and a better proposal.
4045: Yes
3968: Yes
3505: Yes
4126: Yes
Friendly amendment: It might be out of the scope of what we are allowed to you, but it would be more consistent with what we have recently done in a number of places in the LRM to change
b) Unless the optional expression is omitted, evaluates the expression. If the result is zero, the for-loop shall exit. If it is not zero, or if the expression is omitted, the for-loop shall execute its associated statement(s) and then perform step c). If the expression evaluates to an unknown or high-impedance value, it shall be treated as zero.
to
b) Unless the optional expression is omitted, evaluates the expression. If the result is zero false (as defined in 12.4), the for-loop shall exit. If it is not zero Otherwise, or if the expression is omitted, the for-loop shall execute its associated statement(s) and then perform step c). If the expression evaluates to an unknown or high-impedance value, it shall be treated as zero.
4146: No
The abstract does not have to list enhancements, but if it does, it needs to use the same terms as used in the LRM. "classes implementing multiple protocols" does not implement that requirement. "protocol" is not the term used in the LRM. In addition, its use in this context will probably not be familiar to many people.
4145: No
Gord's suggested wording in http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-xc/hm/0218.html , reflected in proposal version 4145_bind_variation_4.pdf<http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5767&type=bug> , is pretty good.
However, the proposal version 4 contains an extra "target". Gord wrote, "It shall be an error to use noninstance-based binding for a given target if the design contains more than one module, program, or interface with the target name," and the proposal contains an additional "target" after "contains more than one". It should be deleted.
Also, despite the fact that the phrase " target module, interface, or program" exists in the LRM, as far as I can see, programs cannot be targets. The BNF says,
bind_target_scope ::=
module_identifier
| interface_identifier
and the text says, "A bind target scope shall be a module or an interface."
Also, I wonder about the wording, "This can occur in the presence of configuration library mapping." That wording seems to imply that this is the only way this can occur. I guess it is the only way described in the LRM, but maybe "for example" should be added.
3127: Yes
4120: Yes
4127: Yes
Note: Jim Vellenga, by voting Yes, is accepting the proposal without changes.
3710: Yes
3982: Yes
Note: I don't object to Jim Vellenga's suggestion that 'hierarchical expression' be changed to something else, but in that case, 14.5 will need to be changed as well. I think the term comes from the original intent and BNF, which used hierarchical_identifier. I agree that the term is not the most precise and accurate.
3065: Yes
2840: No
Some references are mixed up.
The first change, " In A.2.1.3, Syntax 6-3, Syntax 13-2 and Syntax 25-3 in data_type", should refer to A.2.2.1.
The second change, "data_declaration10 ::= // from A.2.2.1", should refer to A.2.1.3
4138: Yes
4129: Yes
Note: Jim Vellenga's thought was my doubt originally about this proposal, or even whether there really is a problem, but since I don't have time to investigate it thoroughly, this is an easy way to resolve the issue.
3298: Yes
Friendly Amendment: As Dave noted, the text to be changed in now in 8.11, not 8.10
Shalom
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:00
To: sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: {Disarmed} Email Ballot due Monday June 18th
The following is a list of ballot items up for a one week e-mail vote due June 18th. All members present at either the May 21st or June 11th meetings are eligible to vote.
A "No" vote must include a recommended course of action to change your vote to a "yes". That action could be a fix for the proposal, or a different response to the item, ,i.e. that we leave it alone.
Any issue with at least one "no" vote will not pass and will go up for the next e-mail vote, or will be discussed in the next meeting. Proposal owners are encouraged to modify their proposal to address "no" votes as soon as possible so that others may change their vote to a "yes"
EDA.org Mantis - SystemVerilog P1800
ID<view_all_set.php?sort=id&dir=ASC&type=2&print=1>
Summary<view_all_set.php?sort=summary&dir=ASC&type=2&print=1>
0003525<view.php?id=3525>
2012 Ballot comment 41: property_statement should not be part of property_expr
0004045<view.php?id=4045>
2012 Ballot comment 43: checker_declaration BNF does not allow nested checker declaration
0003968<view.php?id=3968>
2012 Ballot comment 38: sequence_formal_type includes redundant 'event'
0003505<view.php?id=3505>
2012 Ballot comment 60: $ missing from param_expression
0004126<view.php?id=4126>
2012 Ballot comments 34, 35: allow for-loop initialization, step, termination statements to be null
0004146<view.php?id=4146>
2012 Ballot comment 10: confusing definitions on p2
0004145<view.php?id=4145>
2012 Ballot comment 13. What does "variation" mean in 23.11
0003127<view.php?id=3127>
2012 Ballot comment 57: cbStartOfReset and cbEndOfReset callbacks are not documented
0004120<view.php?id=4120>
2012 Ballot comments 21,27: mistake in 6.6.8 code example of generic interconnect from 0003724<view.php?id=3724>
0004127<view.php?id=4127>
2012 Ballot comments 23, 48: difference between BNF and example whether data_type appears before or after cover_point_identifier
0003710<view.php?id=3710>
2012 Ballot comment 32: Example may work wrong, negative values may be generated while positive expected when using $random %
0003982<view.php?id=3982>
2012 Ballot comment 36: clocking_decl_assign allows expression or just hierachical_identifier
0003065<view.php?id=3065>
2012 Ballot comment 59: Peculiar BNF for hierarchical_btf_identifier
0002840<view.php?id=2840>
2012 Ballot comment 28: Virtual interface datatype BNF incomplete
0004138<view.php?id=4138>
2012 Ballot comment 53: cross type compatibility inconsistency
0004129<view.php?id=4129>
2012 Ballot comment 50: Need to clarify ambiguous binding of matches operator
0003298<view.php?id=3298>
2012 Ballot comment 24: Use of 'this' in a coverpoint expression
Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
[Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Twitter-32]<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>[Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Technorati-32]<http://go.mentor.com/drich>
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
