RE: [sv-champions] conference call May 21st -- reminder

From: Francoise Martinolle <fm_at_.....>
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 08:01:19 PDT
Neil.

I abstained on 2712, 
I voted NO:2673 (would like to add statement), 2514 (see comment below)


1.  2739  SV-BC Ballot comment 125: 
            Conflict in strength number/name; 5 is not large
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

2.  2738  SV-EC Ballot comment #115 
            Automatic bin creation for coverage points (up to N-1)
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

3. 2737  SV-EC Ballot Comment #54: 
            restricting access of local paramters inside a class
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

4. 2735  SV-EC Ballot Comment #48: Chaining of method calls
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

5. 2730  SV-EC Ballot comment 114: State bins has not been defined
before
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

6. 2729  SV-EC Ballot comments 30 and 31: 
            Ambiguity regarding valid data types to packed
structures/unions
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

7. 2724  SV-EC Ballot Comment #51 Clarification of super.new statement
in 8.14
      Yes __XX_  No ___  Abstain ___

8. 2723  SV-EC Ballot comment #65 
            class decls must be in the same scope as the forward
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

9. 2718  SV-EC Ballot comment #102 dist_item occurs twice in Syntax 18-3
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

10. 2712  SV-EC Ballot comment #116 19.5.6 
            Value resolution needs to clarify rules in context of
wildcard bins
      Yes ___  No ___  Abstain __X_

11. 2700  SV-EC Ballot feedback items 36-40: type rules for strings
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

12. 2698  SV-EC Ballot comment #57: pure keyword SHALL be required
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

13. 2691  SV-BC Ballot comment #76: suspension of function execution
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

14. 2689  SV-BC Ballot comment #73: x in case expressions
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

15. 2688  SV-BC Ballot comment #72: unique-if and x/z values
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

16. 2687  SV-BC Ballot comment #70: expression bit-length enhancements
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

17. 2686  SV-BC Ballot comment #69: 
          Bit/Part-select errors should be reported uniformly.
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

18. 2684  SV-BC Ballot comment #68: Non-constant width part-select
enhancement
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

19. 2681  SV-EC Ballot comment #41: Bad associative array example
      Yes _XX__  No ___  Abstain ___

20. 2679  SV-BC Ballot comment #29: static casting
      Yes ___  No ___  Abstain ___

21. 2674  SV-BC Ballot Comment #123: Incorrect syntax for $fopen in
21.3.1
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

22. 2673  SV-BC Ballot comment #26: Deprecate defparams
      Yes ___  No _X__  Abstain ___
      I believe that we should also add a statement saying that
defparams is not enhanced for parameters 
      of the new systemVerilog datatypes. That will discourage users to
use defparams.
are 

23. 2671  SV-BC Ballot Comment #127 Deprecate or discourage use of
`define
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

24. 2645  SV-CC Ballot comment #154 
          Properties returning DPI information on task/function
declaration 
          are missing
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

25. 2641  SV-CC Ballot comment #150 
          Formal argument types for import /export subroutines should
include 
          time and integer
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

26. 2640  SV-CC Ballot comment #149 
           Using the string "DPI" should result in a compile time
warning
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

27. 2639  SV-CC Ballot comment #148 
            Simplify definition of import/export call chains.
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

28. 2638  SV-CC Ballot comment #147 
          no explicit behavior of a call to a DPI export subroutine
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

29. 2636  SV-CC Ballot comment #145 
          contradition for return value of imported tasks
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

30. 2635  SV-CC Ballot comment #144 tasks consuming time contradiction
in LRM
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

31. 2624  SV-CC Ballot comment #160 Diagram has a blue arrow that should
be black
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

32. 2611  SV-BC Resolution of names containing ::
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

33. 2610  SV-BC Name resolution in presence of type parameters needs to 
          be clarified
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

34. 2597  SV-EC Ballot comment #49 
          When do class property initializers execute in relation with
the 
          constructor call
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

35. 2593  SV-BC Omitting types in port declaration
      Yes X__  No ___  Abstain ___

36. 2588  SV-CC Omission of package as a legal context in which DPI
imports can 
          be declared
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

37. 2580  SV-BC %p should allow radix specification
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

38. 2568  SV-BC unpacked array terminology unclear in $readmem $writemem
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

39. 2514  SV-EC Ballot comment #182 External constraint blocks not
defined well
      Yes ___  No __X_  Abstain ___
Comment: It seems to me that the rule below does not support and is not
consistent with class inheritance, 
since it says that the pure constraint in the derived class is ignored
and always replaced with the base pure constraint.
This is inconsistent with the way class properties which appear in both
base and derived classes work. Why?

"
A virtual class that inherits a pure constraint from its superclass may
have a pure constraint of the same name. In
this case, the pure constraint in the derived virtual class shall be
ignored and a warning may be issued. The
superclass's pure constraint shall be inherited as if the duplicate in
the derived class were not present."

40. 2510  SV-EC Ballot comment #183 
          Allowed types for clocking signal is too restrictive
      Yes ___  No ___  Abstain ___

41. 2501  SV-BC implication operator (->) should short-circuit and
equivalence 
            operator (<->) should evaluate operands only once
      Yes ___  No ___  Abstain ___

42. 2486  SV-AC Scope of Annex F definition of "specify" is not clear.
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

43. 2477  SV-BC How are values of enumeration constants calculated?
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

44. 2468  SV-CC vpiStartLine vpiColumn vpiEndLine vpiEndColumn 
          assertion properties all undefined in include file
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

45. 2427  SV-CC vpiEdge, vpiDirection should be int, not bool
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

46. 2342  SV-EC Class constructor should not be allowed to be static or 
          virtual (p1800-2009 ballot id 185)
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

47. 2288  SV-EC Ballot comment #186 Re: Associative array next() &
prev()
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___

48. 1791  SV-BC atoi(), atohex(), atooct(), atobin() should warn about
truncation
      Yes ___  No ___  Abstain ___

49. 1651  SV-BC $psprintf
      Yes _X__  No ___  Abstain ___



50. 1256  SV-EC Minor problems in description of Linked Lists (Annex H) 
          [p1800-2009 ballot comment id 192]
      Yes __X_  No ___  Abstain ___

Neil 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:53 PM
To: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: [sv-champions] conference call May 21st -- reminder


                Toll Free Dial In Number: (866)839-8145 Int'l
Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (215)446-3660
                             ACCESS CODE: 9301228

Hi Champions,

We are scheduled to meet tomorrow morning, Thursday May 21st, 8AM PST.

The sv-cc and sv-ac have responded to the Champions feedback from the
May 14th conference call. The proposals for the following mantis items
are now ready for the champions.



1. 2621   sv-cc

    The following concern was noted by the Champions. In the May 14th
conference
    call the Champions unanimously agreed to send the proposal back to
the
    committee for review to make sure that the following was noted by
the
    committee and that they still believe that the proposal is
consistent with
    the rest of the text in the LRM.

        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?

        37.3.5 only talks about functions with side effects.
        The other text is unconditional.


2. 2637   sv-cc

    In the May 14th conference call the Champions noted that the
proposal
    doesn't make any updates to the subclause that was mentioned in the
ballot
    feedback. There were some changes made in the same general area, but
not the
    specific changes mentioned by the ballot feedback.

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


3. 2654   sv-ac -- the Framemaker files were created for the Editor

       The proposal failed to pass in the Champions email vote that
ended on
       May 14th, 2009. The Champions noted that the Editor will require
new
       diagrams from the committee. A Framemaker source file for this
change to
       the diagram would be best. The current format for these diagrams
cannot be
       Edited and need to be redone.

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 Thu May 21 08:10:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 21 2009 - 08:10:23 PDT