Hi Brad, I believe the change in mantis 2711 is a clarification, not an enhancement. Steven Sharp was quite vocal about not wanting to approve this change. It was Steven that mentioned that he thought it could possibly cause a no vote on the re-ballot of the LRM. Cliff decided to also vote no, after he heard Steven mention the part about the no vote on the re-ballot. Tom didn't give a reason for his no vote. Tom voted no after hearing Steven and Cliff vote no. Tom had voted yes during the email vote. Below are some details from the email vote: Steven I will not approve any further creep in the functionality of ref args of covergroups, until it has been specified that the actuals to such arguments must be static variables. At present there is nothing to prevent passing an actual whose lifetime is shorter than the covergroup. Arturo I don't think these should be allowed. Here are my notes from the conference call on this topic: Arturo - the clocking event is outside the scope of the covergroup Steven - thinks that can be adjusted. - thinks we need to say ref args are statics. Arturo - doesn't want to make them static Steven - mostly concerned about automatics used in this context Arturo - what about dyanamic arrays? Steven - we get an x value in those cases. That case is more well defined. Arturo - we could say the behavior is undefined in that situation. Gord - that is a dangerous situation. Jonathan - the only problem is that it could mess up the covergroup. Steven - in theory there could also be segmentation faults. Dave - isn't that a separate issue? Steven - has no problem making the list of formals in scope. Dave - it is still a separate issue (a covergroup referring to dynamic objects) Steven - should have put in a ballot comment on the ref issue, and would like to push it here now. Gord - that issue already exists. Would rather clarify one. Steven - thinks this extends something that already has problems. - extending the scope of where the existing problem could exist. - A ref to an automatic. Gord - an event control adds more opportunity for the problem to exist. Jonathan - it is ok though, if the automatic outlives the covergroup Dave - this proposal doesn't address that issue. Gord - would oppose saying that we can only have statics. Neil On 05/11/09 23:16, Brad Pierce wrote: > Neil, > > It looks like one of the most controversial issues on this ballot is 2711, regarding ref args of covergroups. > > http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2711 > > Could we get some more background from the SV-EC explaining this issue? It makes me nervous that not even a majority of the eligible voters at the meeting voted 'Yes' and that two of the three opposed thought "passing it could lead to a change of no vote on re-ballot". (No reason is given in Mantis for the third opposing vote.) > > The proposal justs add a sentence > > "The clocking event can be based on ref arguments of the covergroup." > > Is this an enhancement? > > -- Brad > > > ________________________________________ > From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik [Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:15 AM > To: sv-champions@eda.org > Subject: [sv-champions] Champions email vote - ending May 14th > > Hi Champions, > > This is a call for an email vote on the following mantis items. > The email vote will run for 1 week, ending on Thursday May 14th, 7am (PST). > We will also have a conference call the morning of May 14th, 8am (PST). > Any items that don't get approved in this email vote will be discussed in > that meeting. There will be more mantis items from the sv-bc, sv-cc and the > sv-ec. It is my understanding that the sv-ac has completed its work already. > > The following set of Mantis items are currently in the resolved state: > I will send an updated list later today that has links for those that > like to click on a link for each item being voted on. > > 1. 2646 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Assumption in deferred assertion example should be made explicit > 2. 2657 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarify notion of sequence > 3. 2648 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Need an example of cyclic dependencies between sequences > 4. 2649 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC sequence_actual_arg is used to represent the default argument > 5. 2655 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Backward compatibility issue with the clocking specification > 6. 2644 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #153 Wrong function named in table 36.9 > 7. 2630 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #168 Wrong format type named in Table 38-5 > 8. 2653 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Sequence match not shown in timing diagram > 9. 2612 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC `true should have a backtick in a sequence example > 10. 2660 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Add indices to expressions > 11. 2478 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clock flow subclause is not consistent with multiclocked > property definition > 12. 2661 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC "Syntax 16-19" is in blue. > 13. 2659 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Backward compatibility issue with sequence property > 14. 2541 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC syntax errors - missing parenthesis > 15. 2516 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Another contradiction of existing text with 2398 needs to be fixed > 16. 2496 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC non_port_program_item should contain assertion_item > 17. 1775 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC cbAtEndOfSimTime not in header files > 18. 2576 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Failed to remove reference to Reader API when deprecating Data > Read API > 19. 2621 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #155 vpiSize should return an error when applied > on a vpiFunction returning string > 20. 2623 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #157 vpiArrayType is labelled bool, should be int > 21. 2626 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #162 In Table 38-3 in vpiScalarVal, vpi1 et al > should be in bold > 22. 2631 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #172 The usage of the the term PLI is confusing > 23. 2637 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #146 Term PLI is confusing > 24. 2628 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #164 In Arguments section, s_vpi_arrayvalue > should be p_vpi_arrayvalue. > 25. 2717 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Ballot comment #81 Clarification needed for the usage of > severity tasks. > 26. 2647 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarification about clock glitches in concurrent assertions > 27. 2656 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarify difference of $global_clock handling in simulation and > formal verification > 28. 2658 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Default values for untyped formals > 29. 2654 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Error in an example of throughout operator > 30. 2642 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #151 Need a similar rule for disabled > SystemVerilog functions in section 9.6.2 > 31. 2643 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #152 Section implies that a SystemVerilog > function cannot be disabled > 32. 2680 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #32: Writing to an array with an invalid index > 33. 2513 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC BNF needs fixes to allow checkers in packages > 34. 2542 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Config declaration BNF bug > 35. 2550 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC static variable initialization example has error > 36. 2634 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #20 Wording of paragraph implies evaluation > 37. 2672 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #Macro expansion example incorrect in 22.5.1 > 38. 2683 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #66: Example mislabelled "delay control" instead > of "event control" > 39. 2695 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #169: BNF error in edge_sensitive_path_declaration > 40. 2652 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Future value functions need clarification > 41. 2562 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC rand qualifier for checker variables is not reflected in BNF > 42. 2650 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Ambiguity in a sequence repetition [*0] definition > 43. 2670 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #130: Module header description is missing the > package import list in 23.2.1 > 44. 2675 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #103: Clarification of readmem warning > 45. 2676 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #28: port connection warning > 46. 1492 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Overriding default lifetime of subroutine formal arguments > 47. 2625 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #161 There is a blue change bar at the bottom > of the page. > 48. 2622 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #156 Arrow missing in VPI Generate diagram > 49. 2629 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #167 Function "vpi_get64" should be > "vpi_get_long()" > 50. 2627 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #163 In Tables 38-3 and 38-5, for decimal > characters, "0-9" should be in bold, for consistency. > > > The following list have been resolved by the SV-ec, but the mantis items > have not yet been moved to the resolved state. They will be placed into > the resolved state today. > > 51. 2632 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-cc id 16 approved email May 1 2009 > 52. 2633 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-cc id 17 approved email May 1 2009 > 53. 2705 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 35 approved email May 1 2009 > 54. 2700 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 36,39,40 approved email May 1 2009 > 55. 2682 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 42 approved email May 1 2009 > 56. 2430 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 43 approved email May 1 2009 > 57. 2701 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 44 approved, may 4 2009 meeting > 58. 2430 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 45 approved email May 1 2009 > 59. 2706 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 46 approved email May 1 2009 > 60. 2713 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 47 approved, may 4 2009 meeting > 61. 2719 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 58 approved email May 1 2009 > 62. 2358 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 67 approved, may 4 2009 meeting [ with spelling correction] > 63. 2596 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 80 approved email May 1 2009 > 64. 2710 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 106 approved email May 1 2009 > 65. 2711 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 107 approved may 4 2009, 6 Yes, 3Abstains, 3 No Votes > 66. 2719 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 117 approved email May 1 2009 > 67. 2719 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 118 approved email May 1 2009 > 68. 2719 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 119 approved email May 1 2009 > 69. 2543 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id approved in may 4 2009 meeting > 70. 2035 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 181 approved on may 4 2009 with 2 abstains > 71. 2473 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 184 approved email May 1 2009 (no action taken) > > > Neil > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue May 12 11:48:16 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 12 2009 - 11:48:20 PDT