RE: [sv-champions] Email vote ending April 8th

All approved
>
> 1. 2209 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2209> Enhancement SV-AC
> Add optional event control to deferred assertions in 2005
> No change required.
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-29: 13y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 2. 1675 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1675> Errata SV-AC
> Assertion system function syntax is not complete
> No change required (was addressed by mantis 2476).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-29: 13y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 3. 3037 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3037> Enhancement SV-AC
> Introduce assertion system functions for 4-valued type support
> No change required (was addressed by mantis 2476).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-29: 13y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve X__ Oppose __
>
>
> 4. 2387 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2387> Errata SV-AC
> Layout of 16.11 is inconsistent
> No change required (was addressed by mantis 2476).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-29: 13y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 5. 2476 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2476> Errata SV-AC Need
> clarification about system functions $onehot, etc
> There is a proposal (7 pages - with quite a few changes).
> Approved by email ballot 2011-03-28: 9y/0n/0y.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 6. 1933 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1933> Errata SV-AC
> 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
> The Champions requested that the section number be changed.
> There is a proposal, which changes the referenced section number,
> as requested.
> Approved by email ballot 2011-01-31: 10y/0n/0a (svac1933.pdf).
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 7. 753 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=753> Errata SV-CC No VPI
> object for an iterative constraint
> There is a proposal, changes are being made to one diagram
> On Jan-05-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous).
> The SV-CC re-reviewed the proposal and now it matches what the we
> approved last time.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 8. 2412 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2412> Enhancement SV-AC
> Allow clock inference in sequences
> The proposal was rejected by the Champions September 29, 2010 and
> then again on December 13, 2010.
> There is a proposal, making quite a few changes (5 pages).
> Approved by email ballot 2011-02-14: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 9. 3113 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3113> Errata SV-AC Add
> port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences, properties
> and checkers
> The proposal was rejected by the Champions October 30, 2010.
> There is a proposal, changing port_identifier to
> formal_port_identifier in several places in the BNF.
> Approved by email ballot 2011-02-14: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 10. 3135 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3135> Clarification
> SV-AC Verbal explanation of nexttime and always is misleading for
> multiple clocks.
> The proposal was rejected by the Champions on February 7, 2011.
> There is a proposal, the "same" new paragraph is being inserted in
> 3 places.
> Approved by email ballot 2011-02-14: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 11. 2839 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2839> Errata SV-AC
> Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage.
> There is a proposal, for a one-line change.
> The proposal was approved by the Champions with a friendly
> amendment. in the email vote which ended February 7, 2011.
> The friendly amendment was made.
> Passed by voice vote 2011-02-15: 8y/0n/0a.
>
> No further action is required by the Champions.
>
>
> 12. 2557 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2557> Errata SV-AC Rules
> for passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are not clear
> The proposal was approved by the Champions with a friendly
> amendment on February 7, 2011.
> The friendly amendment was made.
> Passed by voice vote 2011-02-15: 8y/0n/0a.
>
> No further action is required by the Champions.
>
>
> 13. 2386 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2386> Errata SV-AC
> Rename 16.9 to "Local variables"?
> Was approved by the Champions on February 7, 2011 with a friendly
> amendment.
> The friendly amendment has been made.
> Approved by voice vote 2011-02-15: 8y/0n/0a.
>
> No further action is required by the Champions.
>
>
> 14. 3376 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3376> Errata SV-AC
> triggered should be typeset as code
> There is a proposal, for a one-word font change.
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-08, 8y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 15. 3355 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3355> Errata SV-CC VPI
> object model for constraints is not consistent with constraint syntax
> There is a proposal (a few changes to two diagrams).
> On Feb-16-2011, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous).
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 16. 2804 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2804> Errata SV-AC Need
> to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock when
> expression appears in procedural assertion
> Was rejected by the Champions October 30, 2010.
> There is a proposal (2 pages - there are several changes).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-22: 11y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __X Oppose __
>
>
> 17. 3377 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3377> Errata SV-AC Fix
> method names in C.2.3 ended sequence method
> There is a proposal (minor changes to one paragraph).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-23: 11y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>
>
> 18. 3191 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3191> Enhancement SV-AC
> Allow sequence methods with sequence expressions
> There is an 8 page proposal (several small changes scattered around).
> Approved by voice vote 2011-03-29: 13y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve _x_ Oppose __
>
>
> 19. 1477 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1477> Errata SV-CC
> virtual interfaces information model
> The proposal was opposed by the Champions in the email vote which
> ended on December 13, 2010. There are some notes which provide
> explanations requested by the Champions.
> There is a proposal, which is 22 pages in length.
> On Feb-16-2011, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous).
>
> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>

--
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.