Date: Sun Jun 24 2012 - 23:44:21 PDT
I change my votes on 4145 and 3940 to Yes.
Shalom
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [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
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
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 Rich, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:16
To: sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:sv-xc@eda.org>
Subject: Email Ballot due June 25th
This email ballot will close 1-hour before our next meeting. A few of these failed in the previous ballot and have new proposals or need new proposals. There are only two new issues.
ID<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=id&dir=ASC&type=2>[Description: http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/images/down.gif]
Type<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=custom_Type&dir=DESC&type=2>
Category<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=category&dir=DESC&type=2>
Severity<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=severity&dir=DESC&type=2>
Status<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=status&dir=DESC&type=2>
Summary<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view_all_set.php?sort=summary&dir=DESC&type=2>
0004145<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4145>
Clarification
SV-BC
minor
assigned (Brad Pierce)
2012 Ballot comment 13. What does "variation" mean in 23.11
Failed: New proposal addresses all comments from previous vote
0004129<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4129>
Clarification
SV-EC
minor
assigned (Brad Pierce)
2012 Ballot comment 50: Need to clarify ambiguous binding of matches operator
Failed: See notes in Mantis
0004127<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4127>
Errata
SV-EC
major
assigned (Shalom Bresticker)
2012 Ballot comments 23, 48: difference between BNF and example whether data_type appears before or after cover_point_identifier
Failed: See notes in Mantis
0004126<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4126>
Enhancement
SV-BC
minor
assigned (Brad Pierce)
2012 Ballot comments 34, 35: allow for-loop initialization, step, termination statements to be null
Failed: New proposal addresses all comments from previous vote
0003982<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3982>
Errata
SV-EC
minor
assigned (Shalom Bresticker)
2012 Ballot comment 36: clocking_decl_assign allows expression or just hierachical_identifier
Failed: See note in mantis
0003940<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3940>
Clarification
SV-AC
minor
assigned (Anupam Prabhakar)
2012 Ballot comment 18: Clarify that the scope of a clocking event flows left to right across an instance of a property also.
New proposal
0003879<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3879>
Clarification
SV-AC
minor
assigned (Shalom Bresticker)
2012 Ballot comment 40: Return value of sequence methods should be well-defined
New proposal
0003525<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3525>
Errata
SV-AC
major
assigned (Ed Cerny)
2012 Ballot comment 41: property_statement should not be part of property_expr
Comments from Shalom:
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.
0002840<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2840>
Errata
SV-EC
major
assigned (Brad Pierce)
2012 Ballot comment 28: Virtual interface datatype BNF incomplete
Failed: New proposal addresses all comments from previous vote
Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
[Description: Description: Twitter-32]<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>[Description: Description: Technorati-32]<http://go.mentor.com/drich>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
