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

This never made it to the reflector

Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
New Office Number:   510-354-7439
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:05 PM
> To: 'neil.korpusik@oracle.com'; sv-champions@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending October 30th
>
> My votes:
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
> Note: indicate accepted proposal in bugnote
>
> # 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 There is a proposal, but it is obsolete.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 _X_ Oppose __ required"
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 2491 SV-AC Conflicting rules in 16.17 (D7)
> no change required
> Passed by email ballot 2010-07-26: 9y/0n/0a
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_
> "design variables" is not defined anywhere. Should it be "sampled
> variables"
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
> Friendly amendment to added sentence should be "nor" instead of "or" ??
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
> Please note approved proposal
> # 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 _X_
> Fix 16.13.13 all at the same time
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_
> Was quorum achieved on this vote? Did not see voting results in the
> meeting minutes for this issue
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_
> Use of the term "time constant" is particularly confusing in this
> context. "Constant expression" is the proper term and represents a BNF
> non-terminal.
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
> Please note approved proposal
>
> # 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 X__
> Address Shalom's bugnote
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 2747 SV-AC Typing error, missing () around property declaration
> duplicate
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 2206 SV-AC Random simulation of non-deterministic free variables in
> checkers
> duplicate
> Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> # 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 _X_ Oppose __
>
> Dave Rich
> Verification Technologist
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
> New Office Number:   510-354-7439
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:30 PM
> > To: sv-champions@eda.org
> > Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending October 30th
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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.