Reminder,
The champions email vote is about to end.
September 29, 1pm (PST)
Neil
On 09/22/10 10:15, Neil Korpusik wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the inputs.
>
> Shalom has also mentioned that he needs more time. Francoise has
> been on vacation this week. Since there are several people that
> need more time I am extending the deadline by one week. I expect
> to have a majority of votes by this new deadline.
>
> The new deadline is
>
> September 29, 1pm (PST)
>
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> On 09/22/10 10:01, Rich, Dave wrote:
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> I was out of the country traveling last week and need some more time to
>> review the issues requiring a change to the LRM.
>>
>> I do vote to close all issues requiring no change or marked as
>> duplicates and leave it up to the original reporters to open up a new
>> mantis item if they do not feel satisfied with the decision.
>>
>> 3-9, 16-30,32,34,35
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:39 PM
>>> To: sv-champions@eda.org
>>> Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending September 22nd
>>>
>>> P1800 Champions,
>>>
>>> I sent this out yesterday, but it seems to have bounced due to my new
>>> Oracle email address.
>>>
>>> September 22, 1pm (PST) <--- new voting deadline
>>>
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Email vote - September 21st
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:59:34 -0700
>>> From: Neil Korpusik <neil.korpusik@oracle.com>
>>> Reply-To: neil.korpusik@oracle.com
>>> To: sv-champions@eda.org <sv-champions@eda.org>
>>>
>>> P1800 Champions,
>>>
>>> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the
>> resolved
>>> state. There are 72 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put
>> the
>>> first 40 into this first email vote. A lot of these mantis items are
>> for
>>> closing without any changes being required. Several of the others are
>>> very small changes. Only a few have a more extensive set of changes. I
>> am
>>> assuming that most of these will not be controversial.
>>>
>>> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose,
>> please
>>> specify a reason. You have until September 21, 1pm (PST) to cast your
>>> votes.
>>>
>>> I am planning to conduct another email vote for the remaining 32.
>>>
>>> This is the first activity the Champions will be involved in for this
>>> PAR.
>>> Please let me know if you are planning to continue as a Champion for
>> this
>>> Par.
>>> There will be a Working Group meeting on October 14th. I would like to
>>> know now many of you will be able to participate before this meeting
>> is
>>> held.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
P1800 Champions,
We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved
state. There are 72 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put the
first 40 into this first email vote. A lot of these mantis items are for
closing without any changes being required. Several of the others are very
small changes. Only a few have a more extensive set of changes. I am assuming
that most of these will not be controversial.
Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
specify a reason. You have until September 21, 1pm (PST) to cast your votes.
I am planning to conduct another email vote for the remaining 32.
This is the first activity the Champions will be involved in for this PAR.
Please let me know if you are planning to continue as a Champion for this Par.
There will be a Working Group meeting on October 14th. I would like to know
now many of you will be able to participate before this meeting is held.
Neil
- 2571
SV-AC confusing assertion clock inference rule
There is a proposal - a simple one line reword
Approved by email ballot 2010-08-30: 11y/0n/1a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2205
SV-AC $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous
There is a proposal - added cross references and changed "assertion
statements" to "assertions". See the discussion in the notes. Existing
text addresses most of Stu's concerns.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-31: 8y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2080
SV-EC "::" is ambiguous in parameterized classes
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2022
SV-EC index value width extension for associative arrays
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2018
SV-EC Is a queue an array or not?
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1740
SV-EC Item 1457 did not correct section 10.5.3
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1672
SV-EC 18.9: "type" should be "option"
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0802
SV-EC Assigning too many elements to a queue
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0251
SV-EC multiple user defined bins for cross
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2451
SV-EC Omitting body defaults
There is a proposal - several clarifying statements were added.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. Proposal2451v2b.pdf
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1349
SV-EC fork/join_none: what if parent thread terminates without blocking statement?
There is a proposal - a simple clarifying change to one sentence.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2794
SV-EC Clarify queue methods return status
There is a 2-page proposal - several clarifying statements added.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010.
proposal-2794-2a.pdf
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2956
SV-EC clarify class 'process' definition (9.7 vs 18.13.3, 18.13.4, 18.13.5)
There is a one page proposal - fixed a typedef and added missing
methods from "class process" in 9.7.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010.
NOTE to the editor: Add cross references to the functions listed in this table.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2950
SV-EC virtual method prototype matching
Added a one-word clarification to one sentence and added a second sentence.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. 2950.pdf proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2949
SV-EC LRM is silent about the semantics of referencing a clocking block output
What was one sentence in the LRM is now expanded to further clarify
clockvars (inout, input, output).
Approved unanimously, sv-ec meeting August 16 2010. proposal 2949-1a.pdf
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2734
SV-BC Mechanism to initialize an array to a constant value
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because the feature is already there.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2574
SV-BC class_scope parameter identifier missing in ps_parameter_identifier
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it's already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2533
SV-BC Equivalent to what?
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because made irrelevant by 2380.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2525
SV-BC Allow hierarchical references in $unit scope
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue as resolved by 2663.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1685
SV-BC 6.3.2 should be clarified as allowing string literals
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1223
SV-BC red hyperlinked BNF?
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1222
SV-BC clarify explicitly whether a module may instantiate itself
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because no change required.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1204
SV-BC Add lists of figures, tables, syntaxes
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1162
SV-BC A.1.4: list_of_port_declarations BNF rule
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because it is already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1029
SV-BC some 1364 examples use 1800 keywords
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it is already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0991
SV-BC 2, 12: improving syntax boxes
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it was already fixed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0968
SV-BC The 'list package' is not a package (D.1)
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue. List package has already been removed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0154
SV-BC Jeita 29: Dual Data Rate needed in always_ff
I propose to close this issue as resolved by 0002396. [Shalom]
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 0931
SV-BC BNF should be hyperlinked
Propose to close, same as 0001223. [Shalom]
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1678
SV-AC Clarify that rewriting algorithm doesn't replace name resolution.
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2494
SV-AC 37.44 Assertion diagram missing restrict
VPI syntax diagrams -- added "restrict" to 37.45 and 39.3.2
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1763
SV-AC The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect sequence methods and events
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2412
SV-AC Allow clock inference in sequences
Assertions clock related changes (5 page writeup)
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2754
SV-AC P1800-2009 : Can clock change in conditional branch of 'if' operator
no change required
Accepted by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2095
SV-AC Clarify meaning of distribution as condition for "disable iff"
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
The LRM explicitly defines the behavior and semantics of distributions. This behavior is not always intuitive and may be revised in the future. However, given the existing definition, the interpretation is unambiguous.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2485
SV-AC terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
A couple of minor wording changes.
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-09: 8y/0n/1a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2938
SV-AC Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
A new example added to the end of 16.4.2 Deferred assertion flush points
(a half-page proposal).
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-16: 11y/n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2558
SV-AC Restriction inside checker construct
Removed one sentence and added a cross-reference in its place.
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-09: 9y/0n/0a.
The _1 version addresses the friendly amendments sent during the ballot.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2732
SV-AC Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4. Future value change
Expanded explanation of figure 16-4. A one paragraph proposal.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-03: 12y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2353
SV-AC 'classes' missing from description
A couple of minor changes and added a couple of cross references.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-03: 12y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
Received on Wed Sep 29 09:27:26 2010