RE: Email ballot due July 9th

Hi Shalom,

The changes you are talking about are not part of this proposal. I think these changes still may be made as editorial. I agree with both your notes, though the first "shall" is also correct since the first implementation is illegal in the general case.

I uploaded the new version of the proposal: http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=5823&type=bug

Thanks,
Dmitry

From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:03
To: Rich, Dave; sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email ballot due July 9th

I am not sure whether I will attend today's meeting.

4012: I abstain. I don't object to the changes that this proposal makes, but I have a reservation about the existing text:

In the following paragraph:

"If start_event and end_event may be arbitrary sequences, and not necessary boolean values, the checker shall be implemented differently, as shown in Example 2. This case requires a different implementation because the reset of the triggered status of a sequence does not create an event (see 9.4.4), and therefore a sequence triggered method shall not be used in the right-hand side of a continuous assignment, or of an assignment in an always_comb procedure."

"shall be implemented differently" is better worded as "needs to be implemented differently".

"a sequence triggered method shall not be used in the right-hand side of a continuous assignment, or of an assignment in an always_comb procedure." Is this a formal requirement of the standard. I did not see it explicitly stated elsewhere. If it is not, "shall not be used" should be perhaps "should not be used". If it is, but not stated elsewhere, then this is not the place for stating the requirement. It should be stated in Clause 16.

4076: Yes
4141: Yes
4146: Yes

A number of proposals were approved in the last meeting. The Mantis item status for those should be updated to 'approved'.

Thanks,
Shalom

From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:18
To: sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:sv-xc@eda.org>
Subject: [sv-champions] Email ballot due July 9th

The following issue are now up for an e-mail vote due July 9th at 8:00am PDT

0004012<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4012>Ballot comment 46: Complex checker example has redundant code
0004076<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4076>Ballot comments 19, 20, 39: Inconsistency in description of sequence methods
0004141<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4141>Ballot comment 3: "terminating character" in description of string len() method is not clear
0004146<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4146>Ballot comment 10: confusing definitions on p2

If have missed any that are ready to vote on, please tell me before anyone has responded with a vote and I'll add it to the ballot.

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.