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

Reminder,

The Champions email vote will be ending soon.

Neil

On 10/22/10 11:27, Neil Korpusik wrote:
> 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 There is a proposal, but it is obsolete.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.