I vote NO on 2569 (#13), 2496 (#16), 2654 (#29). I abstain from voting on 2680 (#32). My reasons are listed below. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com (503) 692-0898 > 1. 2646 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Assumption in deferred assertion example should be made explicit > 2. 2657 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarify notion of sequence > 3. 2648 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Need an example of cyclic dependencies between sequences > 4. 2649 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC sequence_actual_arg is used to represent the default argument > 5. 2655 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Backward compatibility issue with the clocking specification > 6. 2644 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #153 Wrong function named in table 36.9 > 7. 2630 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #168 Wrong format type named in Table 38-5 > 8. 2653 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Sequence match not shown in timing diagram > 9. 2612 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC `true should have a backtick in a sequence example > 10. 2660 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Add indices to expressions > 11. 2478 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clock flow subclause is not consistent with multiclocked > property definition > 12. 2661 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC "Syntax 16-19" is in blue. > 13. 2659 Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Backward compatibility issue with sequence property The wording of the proposed change is awkward and confusing. I suggest the proposed note be changed to: NOTE-The IEEE Std 1800-2009 semantics for a sequence_expr definition is not backward compatible with IEEE Std 1800-2005. The IEEE Std 1800-2009 equivalent to a sequence_expr as defined in IEEE Std 1800-2005 is strong(sequence_expr). > 14. 2541 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC syntax errors - missing parenthesis > 15. 2516 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Another contradiction of existing text with 2398 needs to be > fixed > 16. 2496 Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___ > SV-AC non_port_program_item should contain assertion_item I agree with the decision of the AC, but think it would have been appropriate to add explicit wording, instead of having readers of the LRM jump search vague, round-about inferences to figure out that deferred assertions are illegal in program blocks. > 17. 1775 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC cbAtEndOfSimTime not in header files > 18. 2576 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Failed to remove reference to Reader API when deprecating Data > Read API > 19. 2621 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #155 vpiSize should return an error when applied > on a vpiFunction returning string > 20. 2623 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #157 vpiArrayType is labelled bool, should be int > 21. 2626 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #162 In Table 38-3 in vpiScalarVal, vpi1 et al > should be in bold > 22. 2631 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #172 The usage of the the term PLI is confusing > 23. 2637 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #146 Term PLI is confusing > 24. 2628 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #164 In Arguments section, s_vpi_arrayvalue > should be p_vpi_arrayvalue. > 25. 2717 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Ballot comment #81 Clarification needed for the usage of > severity tasks. > 26. 2647 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarification about clock glitches in concurrent assertions > 27. 2656 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Clarify difference of $global_clock handling in simulation and > formal verification > 28. 2658 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Default values for untyped formals > 29. 2654 Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Error in an example of throughout operator I am voting NO from the editor's point of view. Years ago, the SV-AC provided the diagrams in the assertions chapters in a format that could be pasted into FrameMaker, but cannot be edited. In order to make the changes requested in this proposal, the AC committee will need to create new diagrams and provide them to the editor. > 30. 2642 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #151 Need a similar rule for disabled > SystemVerilog functions in section 9.6.2 > 31. 2643 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #152 Section implies that a SystemVerilog > function cannot be disabled > 32. 2680 Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _X_ > SV-BC Ballot comment #32: Writing to an array with an invalid index I abstain from voting because I don't want to suggest that I am now in favor of not addressing this ballot issue at this time, but will abide by the vote of the BC committee at the champions level. > 33. 2513 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC BNF needs fixes to allow checkers in packages > 34. 2542 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Config declaration BNF bug > 35. 2550 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC static variable initialization example has error > 36. 2634 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #20 Wording of paragraph implies evaluation > 37. 2672 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #Macro expansion example incorrect in 22.5.1 > 38. 2683 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #66: Example mislabelled "delay control" instead > of "event control" > 39. 2695 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #169: BNF error in edge_sensitive_path_declaration > 40. 2652 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Future value functions need clarification > 41. 2562 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC rand qualifier for checker variables is not reflected in BNF > 42. 2650 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-AC Ambiguity in a sequence repetition [*0] definition > 43. 2670 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #130: Module header description is missing the > package import list in 23.2.1 > 44. 2675 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot Comment #103: Clarification of readmem warning > 45. 2676 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Ballot comment #28: port connection warning > 46. 1492 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-BC Overriding default lifetime of subroutine formal arguments > 47. 2625 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #161 There is a blue change bar at the bottom > of the page. > 48. 2622 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #156 Arrow missing in VPI Generate diagram > 49. 2629 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-CC Ballot comment #167 Function "vpi_get64" should be > "vpi_get_long()" > 50. 2627 Yes _X_ 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. > 51. 2632 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-cc id 16 approved email May 1 2009 > 52. 2633 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-cc id 17 approved email May 1 2009 > 53. 2705 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 35 approved email May 1 2009 > 54. 2700 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 36,39,40 approved email May 1 2009 > 55. 2682 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 42 approved email May 1 2009 > 56. 2430 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 43 approved email May 1 2009 > 57. 2701 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 44 approved, may 4 2009 meeting > 58. 2430 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 45 approved email May 1 2009 > 59. 2706 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 46 approved email May 1 2009 > 60. 2713 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 47 approved, may 4 2009 meeting > 61. 2719 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 58 approved email May 1 2009 > 62. 2358 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 67 approved, may 4 2009 meeting [ with spelling correction] > 63. 2596 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 80 approved email May 1 2009 > 64. 2710 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 106 approved email May 1 2009 > 65. 2711 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 107 approved may 4 2009, 6 Yes, 3Abstains, 3 No Votes > 66. 2719 Yes _X No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 117 approved email May 1 2009 > 67. 2719 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 118 approved email May 1 2009 > 68. 2719 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 119 approved email May 1 2009 > 69. 2543 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id approved in may 4 2009 meeting > 70. 2035 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 181 approved on may 4 2009 with 2 abstains > 71. 2473 Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___ > SV-ec id 184 approved email May 1 2009 (no action taken) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu May 14 01:04:09 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 14 2009 - 01:04:14 PDT