Re: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending October 30th

Reminder,

We have an email vote in progress, which ends on October 30th.

Neil

On 10/18/10 17:30, Neil Korpusik wrote:
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved
> state. There are 47 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put the
> first 32 into this email vote. 13 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.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until October 30, 1pm (PST) to cast your votes.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the
> resolved state. There are 47 mantis items ready for the Champions. I
> have put the first 32 into this email vote. 13 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.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until October 30, 1pm (PST) to cast your votes.
>
> Neil
>
>
> 1. 2871 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2871> SV-AC Clause 16
> does not forbid assertion local variables within clocking event
> expressions
> There is a proposal. Adding one sentence.
> Approved by email vote 2010-08-02 10y/0n/0a.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 2. 1756 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1756> SV-AC The LRM does
> not indicate how the control tasks $asserton/off/kill affect
> verification statements in initial blocks
> There is a proposal, but it is obsolete.
> The resolution being voted on is "no change required"
> Approved by email ballot 2010-08-02: 10y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __ required"
>
> 3. 2479 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2479> SV-AC Annex
> F.5.2.1 conflicts with changes from 2434
> There is a proposal. Mostly removing text from Annex F.4.1.1
> Passed by email ballot 2010-07-36 9y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 4. 2491 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2491> SV-AC Conflicting
> rules in 16.17 (D7)
> no change required
> Passed by email ballot 2010-07-26: 9y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 5. 2839 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2839> SV-AC
> Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage.
> There is a proposal. Changes are being made to one paragraph.
> Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 6. 2557 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2557> SV-AC Rules for
> passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are not clear
> There is a proposal. A few changes are being made to one paragraph.
> Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 7. 2722 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2722> SV-AC Errors in
> Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16
> There is a proposal. Includes a new version of two drawings for
> examples.
> Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 8. 2552 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2552> SV-AC Confusing
> comments regarding nexttime operator
> There is a proposal. Appears to be mostly reformatting.
> Passed by email ballot 2010-07-05: 8y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 9. 2551 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2551> SV-AC trivial
> example error
> There is a proposal. Several naming changes within a few examples.
> Passed by email ballot 2010-07-05: 8y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 10. 2934 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2934> SV-AC Precedence
> and associativity of case operator is not shown in the table
> There is a proposal. Adds one more item to a comma-separated list.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-29: 7y/0n/0a
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 11. 2927 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2927> SV-AC Precedence
> between sequence/property operator and normal expression operator
> There is a proposal. Adds one sentence of text.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-29: 6y/0n/1a (Anupam abstained)
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 12. 2362 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2362> SV-AC 16.14
> mention of assertion control system tasks is unconnected
> There is a proposal. Moves one sentence after rewording it.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-22: 9y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 13. 3113 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3113> SV-AC Add
> port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences, properties
> and checkers
> There is a proposal. Adding the same footnote to several places
> within the bnf.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-22: 9y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 14. 2955 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2955> SV-AC Checker
> example is wrong
> There is a proposal. Adds a comment to and changes a name in an
> example.
> Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 15. 2330 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2330> SV-AC Clarify that
> number_of_ticks argument to $past must be compile-time constant
> There is a proposal. Adds more text to one sentence.
> Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 16. 2291 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2291> SV-AC the
> description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
> There is a proposal. It removes one sentence.
> Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 17. 2804 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2804> SV-AC Need to
> clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock when
> expression appears in procedural assertion
> There is a proposal. 3 sentences are either modified or added.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-08: 11y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 18. 2387 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2387> SV-AC Layout of
> 16.11 is inconsistent
> There is a proposal. Mostly reformatting existing text.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01: 9y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 19. 1933 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1933> SV-AC 16.13.6
> reference to triggered method can be improved
> There is a proposal, but the suggested change is not necessary.
> The vote is to close as "no change required".
> Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01 9y/0a/0n.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 20. 3020 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3020> SV-AC Recursive
> property Restriction 4 is not consistent between Clause 16.13.17
> and Annex F.7
> There is a proposal. A few clarifications to an existing restriction.
> Approved by SV-AC voice vote 2010-05-25: 11y/0a/0n
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 21. 2252 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2252> SV-AC Several
> symbols in Annex F are in green
> no change required
> Already implemented.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 22. 2916 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2916> SV-AC Wrong font
> in 16.4.2
> no change required
> Already implemented.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 23. 2480 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2480> SV-AC Bug note
> 7169 not implemented in 1668
> No change required
> Already implemented.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 24. 2484 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2484> SV-AC deferred
> cover should have only statement_or_null, not a full action block
> no change required
> Already implemented.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 25. 2807 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2807> SV-AC Typing
> error: actual parameter in example not declared
> no change required
> Already fixed in 1800-2009.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-22: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 26. 2228 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2228> SV-AC Error in
> example in Clause 17.11.4
> no change required
> Already fixed in 1800-2009.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-22: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 27. 2747 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2747> SV-AC Typing
> error, missing () around property declaration
> duplicate
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 28. 2481 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2481> SV-AC Need to swap
> F.3.4.6 and F.3.4.7
> duplicate
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 29. 2232 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2232> SV-AC Incorrect
> region name throughout clause 16
> no change required
> Has already been fixed in the LRM 2009.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 30. 2206 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2206> SV-AC Random
> simulation of non-deterministic free variables in checkers
> duplicate
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 31. 1646 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1646> SV-AC Generate
> constructs within properties and sequences
> won't fix
> The requested functionality has already been implemented in checkers.
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> 32. 3028 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3028> SV-EC constraints
> for unique array elements.
> There is a proposal.
> Adds new functionality (Uniqueness constraints)
> Approved on September 13 2010 sv-ec meeting, No abstain,
> one member [Dave R.] opposed: ( equivalence is too restricted,
> restriction on width).
> The objection as written in the minutes:
> "equivalence is too restrictive, would rather have a restriction
> on expression bit-width."
> Approve __ Oppose __
>

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