[sv-champions] e-mail ballot

Hi Neil:

I vote "yes" on all.

I had minor comments on 2621, 2637, and 2654 to clarify what 
I thought I was voting on.

J.H.

---------------------------------------------

Hi Champions,

This is a call for an email vote on the following mantis items.
The email vote will run for ~6 days, ending on Wednesday May 27th, noon (PST).


2.01 2640  SV-CC Ballot comment #149 
           Using the string "DPI" should result in a compile time warning
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.02 2639  SV-CC Ballot comment #148 
           Simplify definition of import/export call chains.
    Shalom - this is a complex change.
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

REVIEW

2.03 2638  SV-CC Ballot comment #147 
           no explicit behavior of a call to a DPI export subroutine
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.04 2636  SV-CC Ballot comment #145 
           contradition for return value of imported tasks
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.05 2635  SV-CC Ballot comment #144 tasks consuming time contradiction in LRM
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.06 2624  SV-CC Ballot comment #160 
	   Diagram has a blue arrow that should be black
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.07 2611  SV-BC Resolution of names containing ::
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.08 2610  SV-BC Name resolution in presence of type parameters needs to 
           be clarified
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.09 2597  SV-EC Ballot comment #49 
           When do class property initializers execute in relation with the 
           constructor call
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.10 2588  SV-CC Omission of package as a legal context in which DPI imports can 
           be declared
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.11 2580  SV-BC %p should allow radix specification
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.12 2568  SV-BC unpacked array terminology unclear in $readmem $writemem
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.13 2510  SV-EC Ballot comment #183 
           Allowed types for clocking signal is too restrictive
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.14 2501  SV-BC implication operator (->) should short-circuit and equivalence 
           operator (<->) should evaluate operands only once
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.15 2486  SV-AC Scope of Annex F definition of "specify" is not clear.
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.16 2477  SV-BC How are values of enumeration constants calculated?
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.17 2468  SV-CC vpiStartLine vpiColumn vpiEndLine vpiEndColumn 
           assertion properties all undefined in include file
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.18 2427  SV-CC vpiEdge, vpiDirection should be int, not bool
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.19 2342  SV-EC Class constructor should not be allowed to be static or 
           virtual (p1800-2009 ballot id 185)
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.20 2288  SV-EC Ballot comment #186 Re: Associative array next() & prev()
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.21 1791  SV-BC atoi(), atohex(), atooct(), atobin() should warn about 
	   truncation
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.22 1651  SV-BC $psprintf
       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

2.23 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.

       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

    JH:  The current proposal for 2621 makes no reference to 37.3.5, so I 
    no longer see any relevance to 37.3.5 or to the consistency question.


2.24 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.

       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

   JH:  The current proposal makes changes to 35.5.1.3.

   
2.25 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.
   
      Shalom - the revotes from cc 51, 52, he is ok with the changes now. 

       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

      JH:  I believe that Tom Thatcher has already provided frame source.

2.26 2572   sv-cc sv_vpi_user.h (Annex N source) needs repairs

       Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___



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