Date: Mon Jun 25 2012 - 00:06:13 PDT
There should be no "existing tools and code" problem with 4129, because the entire relevant BNF is new, from Mantis 2506.
Shalom
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutherland
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 09:54
To: 'Rich, Dave'; sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due June 25th
My votes follow. I will not be able to attend the meeting because I will be on a flight to Malaysia during the meeting time.
4145 YES
4129 ABSTAIN - I am concerned that this syntax change could affect existing tools and user code, but at the same time I think the added parenthesis is a cleaner syntax.
4127 YES
4126 YES
3892 YES
3940 YES
3879 YES - note: old versions of the proposal should be deleted to prevent confusion.
3535 ABSTAIN - I do not feel qualified to vote on the correctness or necessity of this change. I am concerned that this syntax change could affect existing tools and user code.
2840 YES
Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
22805 SW 92nd Place
Tualatin, OR 97062
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com<mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
+1-503-692-0898
Training engineers to be Verilog, SystemVerilog and UVM wizards!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 1:16 AM
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.
