-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [sv-champions] 12-day email vote Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:56:04 +0200 From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> To: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM I approve all with the following comments: 1945: I would like to see a new, additional example that contains "signed". 1737: On page 2 of the proposal, in the sentences: "If the verification statement is assume property or assert property" and "If the verification statement is cover property", "assume property", "assert property", and "cover property" should all be in bold. 1462: The proposal is to close the issue with no action as being superceded by 1623. Regards, Shalom > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:01 AM > To: sv-champions@server.eda.org > Subject: [sv-champions] 12-day email vote > > SystemVerilog Champions, > > I am calling for an email vote on the following Mantis items. > I believe that this is the first time each of these has been > considered by the Champions (except for 1681). Based on the > Mantis status, it appears that all of these has been udpated > to be consistent with draft 3a. Some of them are flagged as > duplicates of others. > > The email vote will run for 12 days, ending on September 17th > at 7pm PST. > > Please mark each mantis item with your vote. > If you vote no, you must provide a reason. > I would like you to also provide a reason if you decide to abstain. > > Neil > > > > > 1. 0001957 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Macros: ambiguous whether empty arguments > can be used > Unanimously approved by SV-BC on August 6, 2007. > 2. 0001951 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC "Null argument" to mean "omitted > argument" may be confusing > On August 20, 2007 the SV-BC unanimously > approved 3. 0001945 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Syntax error in 19.6.1 example > Unanimously approved by SV-BC on August 6, 2007 > 4. 0001935 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC ansi_port_declaration BNF (A.1.3) > Unanimously approved by SV-BC on August 6, 2007. > 5. 0001928 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-EC clarification of coverpoint value > resolution (18.5.6) > Approved on July/23/2007 unanimously vote. > 6. 0001927 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-EC clarification of default sequence > transition bin in covergroup > Approved on July/23/2007 unanimously vote. > 7. 0001899 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Follow-up to 1831, redundant text > approved by SV-BC e-mail vote that concluded on > July 9, 2007. > 8. 0001871 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-EC clarification needed for illegal/ignore > transition bins > Approved on July/23/2007 unanimously vote. > 9. 0001864 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC D3a 6.7: logic and reg are not just > equivalent types > Approved unanimously by SV-BC on August 6, 2007 > 10. 0001860 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC D3 22.2.2.2 ref port declaration syntax > Unanimously to be a duplicate of 1935 by SV-BC > on August 6, 2007 11. 0001855 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC issues with 22.10 after 1722 > duplicate > 12. 0001814 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC D3 33.5.2.2: sentence in wrong place > unanimously approved by SV-BC e-mail vote > concluded on July 9, 2007. > 13. 0001804 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Add abiltiy to require equiv types for > typed formal args > Voice vote on 2007-08-07 not to address this > since lint tools can > check such conditions > 14. 0001794 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC uninstantiated interface/program > Approved unanimously by SV-BC on August 6, 2007 > 15. 0001745 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC "outside of" and "inside of" are bad style > Approved unanimously by SV-BC on August 6, 2007. > 16. 0001743 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Refinements to 0000331 > already covered by expanded version of 0000331 > by SV-BC on August 6, 2007 17. 0001737 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Incomplete fix from 1381 > Resolved by e-mail ballot on 2007-05-28, > 7y/0n/4a 18. 0001731 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Sampled value functions with arbitrary clocks > Passed by e-mail ballot 2007-07-03, 9y/0n/2a 19. > 0001689 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Return type of $bits() > duplicate of SVDB 919. > 20. 0001681 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Introduce global clocking > New proposal was uploaded - redoing email vote > (didn't reach quorum) 21. 0001626 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 12.3: should say clearly that 1364 > 10.4.4c) does not apply > no action as it was already addressed by the > editor 22. 0001625 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 20.1: typo - "block" -> "blocks" > On July 9, 2007 the attached proposal, > typos_1625.htm, was unanimously > approved by the SV-BC. > 23. 0001607 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC import of a forward typedef > SV-BC unanimously approved resolution of this > issue 24. 0001548 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > V-1364 5.1.13: description of condition reversed > SV-BC unanimously approved > 25. 0001484 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Package declarations should not refer to $unit > SV-BC unanimously approved > 26. 0001462 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 19.5, A.1.2: timeunits_declaration > formatting confusing > SV-BC unanimously approved > 27. 0001459 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-EC Mailbox 'new' method should never return null > passed unanimously > 28. 0001444 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC size warnings in assignment patterns > should be allowed > SV-BC unanimously approved > 29. 0001383 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Property coverage definition > Duplicate of 805 > 30. 0001351 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 12.4.3: endtask should not have ; > was unanimously approved by SV-BC e-mail vote > 31. 0001341 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > V-1364 effect of `resetall on `begin_keywords > not defined in 1364, 19.11 > unanimously approved > 32. 0001340 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC inconsistency between module ports and > task arguments > SV-BC unanimously voted to accept 33. 0001331 > Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 10.4.1.3 xref to 8.17 should be 8.18 > SV-BC unanimously approved > 34. 0001280 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Wrong replication example at end of 3.8 > unanimously approved by SV-BC e-mail vote 35. > 0001233 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC 8.13.1: "similar assignments above" unclear > unanimously approved by SV-BC e-mail vote > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Neil Korpusik Tel: 408-276-6385 > Frontend Technologies (FTAP) Fax: 408-276-5092 > Sun Microsystems email: neil.korpusik@sun.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Korpusik Tel: 408-276-6385 Frontend Technologies (FTAP) Fax: 408-276-5092 Sun Microsystems email: neil.korpusik@sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Oct 3 18:40:51 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 03 2007 - 18:40:51 PDT