P1800 Champions,
We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved
state. There are 38 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put
35 into this email vote. Several 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 December 13, 6pm (PST) to cast your votes.
Neil
--
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 38 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put
35 into this email vote. Several 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 December 13, 6pm (PST) to cast your votes.
Neil
- 2839
Errata SV-AC Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage.
There is a proposal. A one line change.
Was up for a vote in the Champions (10/3/10).
The Champion's feedback was addressed.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2291
Errata SV-AC the description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.
- 2722
Errata SV-AC Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.
- 3168
Errata SV-AC expression1 is not an argument to $past
Duplicate of 3008
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2252
Errata SV-AC Several symbols in Annex F are in green
No change required
This mantis item mentions a problem where some text is in green.
The green text showed up in 1800-2009 draft 5.
The problem was corrected in draft 6.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2948
Errata SV-BC Wrong example in protected envelope
There is a proposal. "data_block" was shown in the wrong location.
On November 8, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1933
Errata SV-AC 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
No change required.
The champions feedback has been addressed.
Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01 9y/0a/0n.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2107
Errata SV-BC Clarifications needed for scope operator
No change required
On November 8, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved resolution of this issue as addressed in 1800-2009.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2206
Enhancement SV-AC Random simulation of non-deterministic free variables in checkers
No change required.
Was already reviewed by the Champions (was miscategorized as "duplicate" at
that time).
Passed by voice vote 2010-11-09: 13y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3231
Errata SV-BC Functions can contain the fork statement
There is a proposal. A small one-line clarification.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3210
Errata SV-BC Declarations of port_identifiers in explicit non-ANSI port declarations
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously agreed that this is not a bug and no change is required.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3137
Errata SV-BC wrong reference in "Port connection rules for variables"
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously agreed that this is not a mistake and no change is required.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3080
Clarification SV-BC When reporting an escaped identifier, should .name() add a leading backslash?
Duplicate of 2678
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved as a duplicate of 2678.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1133
Enhancement SV-BC allow reverse part-select [lsb:msb]
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved to resolve this issue with no change as it is addressed by the streaming operator.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3225
Errata SV-BC Footnote 18 is wrong, too restrictive
There is a proposal. Clarifies one paragraph in Annex A (footnote 18).
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1170
Clarification SV-BC nonport declarations for identifiers mentioned in list_of_port_declarations
There is a proposal. A short clarification on port declarations.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1627
Errata SV-AC 17.16: clarify that expect statement not allowed in functions
There is a proposal. A short clarification on 'expect'.
Passed by email ballot 2010-07-12: 9y/0n/0a.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2412
Enhancement SV-AC Allow clock inference in sequences
There is a proposal. This is a fairly long proposal.
This was previously rejected by the Champions.
The Champions feedback has been incorporated.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3135
Clarification SV-AC Verbal explanation of nexttime and always is misleading for multiple clocks.
There is a proposal. Two new paragraphs are being added.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2904
Clarification SV-AC Clarify when disable iff condition must occur relative to starting and ending of an attempt
There is a proposal. A one-line clarification.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2938
Clarification SV-AC Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
There is a proposal. Adding an additional example and explanation.
This was previously rejected by the Champions.
The proposal was updated to address Champions feedback, and the updated proposal was approved by the SV-AC by voice vote on 10/26/2010: 6y, 0n 0a
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2205
Clarification SV-AC $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous
There is a proposal. It is now very small.
The proposal was previously rejected by the Champions.
The mantis item was updated to address Champions feedback, and the new proposal was approved by the SV-AC by voice vote on 12/26/2010: 7y, 0n, 0a
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2485
Errata SV-AC minor terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.
- 1763
Clarification SV-AC The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect sequence methods and events
No change required.
Was previously rejected by the Champions. The submitter has added a note
as to why no change is required.
The SV-AC voted on 2010-10-19 to again resolve this issue as "no change required": Voice vote, 7y/0n/0a
Approve __ Oppose __
- 2353
Errata SV-AC 'classes' missing from description
There is a proposal.
This was already approved by the Champions with a friendly ammendment.
The SV-AC approved the new version of the proposal addressing the Champions friendly amendment by voice vote on 2010-10-19: 7y/0n/0a
No further action is required by the Champions.
- 2034
Errata SV-CC sv_vpi_user.h lacks vpiChandleVar and vpiChandleTypespec
No change required.
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this as 'No change required'. (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1581
Errata SV-CC Immediate assertion VPI diagram needs a special section
No change required.
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this as 'No change required'. (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1652
Errata SV-CC Which VPI class defn does a data member class var refer to?
Duplicate
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this a duplicate of Item 2094. (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 744
Clarification SV-CC Does vpiMethods iteration include built-in functions and tasks?
Duplicate
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this a duplicate of Item 2094. (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3116
Errata SV-CC No method/transition path to get to typespecs of named events or named event arrays
There is a proposal. Adding a bubble to two diagrams.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3188
Enhancement SV-CC No way to distinguish join, join_none, and join_any for fork-join blocks in VPI
There is a proposal. Small changes in a few places.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3193
Errata SV-CC Need defined value for built-in class type process-class for vpiClassType property.
There is a proposal. Adds one #define.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (by consent)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1477
Errata SV-CC virtual interfaces information model
There is a proposal. Lots of changes (20 pages).
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (Bassam abstained - was still concerned about backward compatibility issues).
Approve __ Oppose __
- 1434
Errata SV-CC Which kind of fork join is not available in VPI (27.9)
Duplicate of 3188.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC voted to declare this a duplicate of Item 3188. (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose __
- 3134
Errata SV-AC sequence and property range parameters are erroneously defined
There is a proposal. Adding a couple of new paragraphs.
Approved by email vote 2010-10-04: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __
Received on Sat Dec 4 20:44:45 2010