[sv-champions] RE: vote

My votes:

 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 _X_ 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There is a proposal, but it is obsolete.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" Abstain (unsure why no change is required)

 1. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 2. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 3. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 4. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 5. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 6. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 7. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 8. 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 __X Could not find table 16. 3 in the LRM, It would be nice to describe which section it is to be found.

 1. 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 __X Oppose __

 2. 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 _X _ Oppose __

 3. 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 __X I do not understand the purpose of the note.

 4. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 5. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 6. 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 __X Oppose __

 7. 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 __ abstain (not understanding )

 8. 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 X__ Oppose __

 9. 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 _X_ Section does not match the current LRM

 10. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 11. 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 __ Abstain: there is no F.4.3.2

 12. 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 __X Oppose __

 13. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 14. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 15. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 16. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 17. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 18. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 19. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 20. 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 _X_ Oppose __

 21. 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 _ABSTAIN: NO TIME TO CAREFULLY REVIEW MAY HAVE CONSEQUENCEs ON vpi MODEL.

 22. 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 _X_ Oppose __

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