[sv-champions] Clarifications on issues from the spreadsheets

Hi, Johny,

        The Champions had several questions about the process that they would like some clarification from you on.

        As you've heard from Stu, it looks like some comments are missing from the spreadsheets, both on 1364 and 1800.  Neil said that he was also missing his filing of a comment.  Can you follow up on that?

        Can web links to the SVDB (mantis) be placed into the spreadsheet for delivery to the IEEE?

        The Champions would like to propose that the committees quickly pass the "easy" stuff so that 
        Stu can get as much editing done as possible with inputs from the 4/19 Champions meeting.  Is 
        that ok with you?  It will change our current operating priority.

        The process we propose to follow is:
                1) Each committee enter their issues in the database and note the Mantis item in their 
                        spreadsheet.  These items should be set to immediate priority to separate them
                        out.

                    The traditional committee, then Champions, then P1800 process through the Database
                        applies

                     We recommend that the Chairs assign owners to issues as soon as they get the lists
                        so that the full day meetings can be as productive as possible.  Perhaps also 
                        having all the issues with formal proposals pulled out for immediate voting by 
                        the committees would be a good approach as well.

                2) Each chair is responsible to update their spreadsheet with resolutions for collation
                        into the reballoting process



        We had the following anomolies in the spreadsheet that we need some help with.

P1364
        Line 29:  The note (b) following Table 16-2 states ($nochange) "not ususally implemented in Verilog simulators".

        There is no change request here.  Can you ask the filer of the question to clarify?

P1800 
    *         Line 37 of the spreadsheet from my mail: Problem with default arguments 
        Is it ok for the champions to say it is a duplicate and save the committees work? 
    *         Line 148: It is not define whatis the whitespaces policy from before and after the variable names in the macro call arguments.  Also it does not say that tab characters are not allowed in this. 
        The Champions believe this is an issue for the 1364.  Can we forward this to them? 
    *         Line 192: Section 8.4.1: Typo in formal semantic definition of SVA 
        The section should be H.4.1:  Can we fix the spreadsheet? 
    *         Line 281: As a general comment, Sutherland HDL feels that the P1800 standard, which is a set of extenstions to the P1364 standard, should not be stand-alone reference manual.  These extensions should be integrated into the P1364 standard, making one unified Verilog standard, rather than two Verilog standards.  However, we recognize that a majority of the P1800 working group members are not in agreement with this.  Sutherland HDL will not hold back its approval of the P1800 standard due to this general comment. We will change our vote to APPROVE if the following six concerns are adequately addressed (assuming that the resolutions to other ballot comments are also satisfactory). 
        No action is required.  Stu, the filer, said so.  What do we say as a comment? 
    * Line 285:   The clause ordering in P1800 is not logical, and is difficult to use the LRM as a reference document.  The ordering reflects 3 years of adding new topics to the end of the LRM.  The P1800 standard is a new standard, and does not have to maintain any legacy clause numbering.  A new standard should be as logical and useful as possible.   
        We gave this one to the Champions because they are the only group that covers the whole thing.
        Johny, is this ok, or do you want me to give it to one of the subcommittees?




Thanks,

Karen