RE: [sv-champions] Champions email vote - ending May 14th

I approve all issues without comments with the following exceptions.
Some are negative votes, some are abstentions with comments, some are approvals but with comments.


> 13. 2659     Yes _x_ No ___ Abstain ___
>      SV-AC  Backward compatibility issue with sequence property

Editorial note: "IEEE Std 1800-2005 semantics for a sequence_expr is changed" will sound better if "is changed" is changed to "were changed".


> 14. 2541     Yes _x_ No ___ Abstain ___
>      SV-AC  syntax errors - missing parenthesis

Parentheses are also missing near the end of 16.15.2:

"a1:assume property @(posedge clk) req dist {0:=40, 1:=60} ;"

The editor has already agreed to fix this.


> 19. 2621     Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _x_
>      SV-CC  Ballot comment #155 vpiSize should return an 
> error when applied
>             on a vpiFunction returning string

The proposal says,
"If the vpiSize of the vpiReturn variable is defined (see 37.17, detail 9) and can be determined without evaluating the function (see 37.3.5), vpiSize for the function shall return the same value as vpiSize for the vpiReturn variable... For all other cases the behavior of vpiSize is undefined."

37.3.5 talks specifically about evaluating functions with side effects, not about function evaluation without side effects.

Is this consistent?


> 23. 2637     Yes ___ No _x_ Abstain ___
>      SV-CC  Ballot comment #146 Term PLI is confusing

The ballot comment specifically referenced subclause 35.5.1.3, where there are 2 references to PLI. The proposal does not fix this subclause.


> 24. 2628     Yes _x_ No ___ Abstain ___
>      SV-CC  Ballot comment #164 In Arguments section, s_vpi_arrayvalue
>             should be p_vpi_arrayvalue.

The correct subclause for the second change is 38.35, not 37.35.


> 32. 2680     Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _x_
>      SV-BC  Ballot comment #32: Writing to an array with an 
> invalid index

I abstain because the current behavior is inconsistent with the behavior for associative arrays (7.9.6) and queues(7.11.1), where warnings are mandatory.
Note that the committee was almost evenly split: 7 for, 6 against.


> 41. 2562     Yes ___ No _x_ Abstain ___
>      SV-AC  rand qualifier for checker variables is not 
> reflected in BNF

The proposal says 

[rand] data_declaration

where

data_declaration ::=
[ const ] [ var ] [ lifetime ] data_type_or_implicit list_of_variable_decl_assignments ;
...

That is, according to this, rand must come before const.

17.7 has examples:
const rand bit [5:0] idx;
const rand bit [$bits(in_data)-1:0] mem_data;

Apparently the examples should be changed so that rand precedes const.


> 44. 2675     Yes _x_ No ___ Abstain ___
>      SV-BC  Ballot Comment #103: Clarification of readmem warning

I would change 

"are not modified by the operation"

to

"shall not be modified by the operation" 


> 54. 2700     Yes ___ No _x_ Abstain ___
>      SV-ec id 36,39,40 approved email May 1 2009

The proposal references "Ballot items #37-39", but 37 and 38 were not approved. I don't know what changes in the proposal, if any, were rejected.


> 64. 2710     Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _x_
>      SV-ec id 106 approved email May 1 2009

I'm not very happy with the addition of "as described in 13.5". This sounds like it means that 13.5 describes arguments to covergroups, which it does not.

"A output" should be "An output".


> 66. 2719     Yes ___ No _x_ Abstain ___
>      SV-ec id 117 approved email May 1 2009

In ballot ID 117, it should be noted that additional indentations were changed. Otherwise, the editor may miss them.

Mantis 2719 also covered Ballot ID 104. I don't see that in this email ballot.
In ballot ID 104, which adds to 19.1 an additional bullet, "Coverage Computation", the "C" in "Computation" should be lower case.


> 69. 2543     Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _x_
>      SV-ec id approved in may 4 2009 meeting

Shouldn't the following also be changed?

gc::type_option.comment = "Here is a comment for covergroup g1"; 


> 70. 2035     Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _x_
>      SV-ec id 181 approved on may 4 2009 with 2 abstains

The mix of "method" and "task" in the text is confusing.


Thanks,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.