FW: Email Ballot due June 25th

fyi

From: Prabhakar, Anupam [mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 00:56
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Bresticker, Shalom
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Little, Scott
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due June 25th

Hi Shalom,

For 3940
That is, the proposed wording, in addition to adding that the scope of a clocking event flows left to right across an instance of a property as well as of a sequence, moves the reference to the triggered and matched sequence methods from "flows left to right across" to "flows into". I want to get confirmation that this is deliberate and correct.
AP : Yes, this is intentional. Mantis 2412 allows inferring clock from the context for sequences instances to which a method is applied.

Anupam

From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]<mailto:[mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:39 AM
To: Prabhakar, Anupam
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org<mailto:sv-ac@eda-stds.org>; Little, Scott
Subject: FW: Email Ballot due June 25th

Hi Anupam,

See Shalom's comments.

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 16:37
To: Rich, Dave; sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:sv-xc@eda.org>
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due June 25th

4145: No.
"more than one target module, program, or interface with the target name" should be
"more than one module or interface with the target name".

(programs cannot be targets)

4129: Yes.
I'm not sure the parentheses are essential, but I accept them as a possible solution, even if they may be overkill. An explanation of integer_expression would be good, but I am not voting against the proposal because of it.

4127: Yes.
I'll be happy to have better wording, but I am not against the current proposal.

4126: Yes.
The proposed syntax is supported by current tools and used in some current code.

3982: Yes.
I'll be happy to have better wording, but then 14.5 will have to change also. In the meantime, I am not against the current proposal.

3940: No.
I have the following reservation.

The current wording is,
"Similarly, the scope of a clocking event flows into an instance of a named property or sequence. The scope of a clocking event flows left to right across an instance of a sequence, regardless of whether method triggered or method matched is applied."

The proposed wording is,
"Similarly, the scope of a clocking event flows into an instance of a named property or sequence, regardless of whether method triggered or method matched is applied to the instance of the sequence. The scope of a clocking event flows left to right across an instance of a property or a sequence."

That is, the proposed wording, in addition to adding that the scope of a clocking event flows left to right across an instance of a property as well as of a sequence, moves the reference to the triggered and matched sequence methods from "flows left to right across" to "flows into". I want to get confirmation that this is deliberate and correct.

Regarding one of Brad's reservations, "I'd like confirmed that "regardless of whether method triggered or method matched is applied to the instance of the sequence" needn't mention "property"", the answer is that it is ok because triggered and match are methods of sequences, not properties.

3879: Yes.

3525: No.

The proposal makes the BNF of property_statement_spec identical to property_spec. If going that route, accepting the backward incompatibility mentioned in the Mantis item (and I am inclined to accept it), then they should be merged, and you only need property_spec.

Also, the proposal changes property_case_item to use property_expr instead of property_statement. That is mentioned in the changes to 16.12 and to A.2.10, but is omitted from the changes to Syntax 16-19.

Also, it should be noted that moving the if and case constructs to property_expr allows them wherever property_expr would be allowed, such as in property_actual_arg (Syntax 16-16).

2840: Yes.

Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Received on Sun Jun 24 20:03:13 2012