P1800 Champions,
We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved state. There are 37 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put all 37 into this email vote. Most of these mantis items are for small changes or for no changes at all. Mantis 2506 is however a fairly large proposal.
Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please specify a reason. You have until June 11, 6pm (PST) to cast your votes.
Neil
1.
3254<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3254> Errata SV-EC 18.5.6 if-else constraints mistakenly uses the work "block" when it means "set"
There is a proposal (2 words changed in one paragraph)
Approved in email vote 5/11/2011. proposal: 3254_constraint_set.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __
2.
2905<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2905> Errata SV-EC BNF bug for attribute instance along with timeunits_declaration
There is a proposal (one change to the timeunits BNF)
Approved in email vote 5/11/2011, proposal: 2905_attribute_timeunits.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __
3.
2935<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2935> Errata SV-EC Correction to example in 9.7. in 1800-2009
No change required - has already been fixed
Approved by email vote, 5/11/2011. CLOSE as already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
4.
2463<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2463> Errata SV-BC 9.4.3: Description of repeat event control is in the wrong place
No change required
On May 23, 2011 by email vote the SV-BC unanimously agreed this issue was addressed in 1800-2009.
Approve __ Oppose _x_
Bug note 10947 is confusing. It seems self-contradictory. It says,
"On May 23, 2011 by email vote the SV-BC unanimously agreed this issue was addressed in 1800-2009.
Please note: the attached proposal should not be deleted despite the fact that "no change is required". This issue was not addressed during the 1800-2009 process."
If the issue was addressed, what is the meaning of the last sentence?
5.
1214<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1214> Errata SV-BC Why a separate package name space? (19.13)
No change required
On May 23, 2011 by email vote the SV-BC unanimously agreed this issue was addressed in 1800-2009.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
6.
2540<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2540> Clarificatio SV-BC Package and identifier "::" rules
No change required
On May 23, 2011 by email vote the SV-BC unanimously agreed this issue was addressed in 1800-2009.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
7.
2982<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2982> Errata SV-BC Keyword "rand" is used in example as variable ident - this should not compile
There is a proposal - small changes to two examples - old 1364 example that now conflicts with new SystemVerilog keywords.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
8.
0245<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=0245> Clarification SV-EC Array of queues
No change required
SV-EC meeting April 11 2011: close mantis 245, as already implemented. One abstain vote from Gord: The summary says array of queues - not sure that what exists is as general as what was requested. Persistence of elements is a key point with this.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
9.
2985<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2985> Clarification SV-EC Multi-dimensional queues
Duplicate of 245
Unanimoulsy approved: April 11 2011
Approve _x_ Oppose __
10.
3297<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3297> Errata SV-EC text 18.6.2 font size issue
There is a proposal - font changes in several places
Unanimously approved: sv-ec meeting April 11 2011 proposal: 3297_font_size.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __
11.
3181<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3181> Errata SV-EC minor incorrect syntax in with clause in example in 18.5.7.2
There is a proposal - changes one line of one example
Unanimously approved: sv-ec meeting April 11 2011. proposal: 3181_with_parentheses.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __
12.
2952<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2952> Errata SV-EC text Identifier case error in 25.9 virtual interface example
There is a proposal - corrects several typos in one example
Unanimously approved, sv-ec meeting April 11 2011.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
13.
3405<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3405> Errata SV-EC text Virtual interface example typos
Duplicate of 2952
SV-EC April 11 2011 meeting: Unanimously approved to close 3405 mantis as duplicate of 2952.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
14.
2662<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2662> Clarification SV-B misleading pseudo-nonterminal name in escaped identifier production in Annex A
There is a proposal - a one line bnf change
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
15.
3216<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3216> Errata SV-BC minor 'simple_type' excerpt error
There is a proposal - a one line bnf change
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
16.
2901<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2901> Errata SV-BC minor var and type() in for_variable_declarations
There is a proposal - another bnf change
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
17.
3233<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3233> Errata SV-BC minor implicit wire declarations should occur in instantiations of programs/interfaces also
There is a proposal - a one line change
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
18.
2835<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2835> Errata SV-BC minor It should be legal to explicitly specify let arguments as untyped
There is a proposal - one line bnf update
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
19.
3151<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3151> Errata SV-BC minor Unnecessary variable declaration in factorial function (13.4.2)
There is a proposal - one line change to an example
On May 4, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal via email vote.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
20.
0696<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=0696> Enhancement SV-BC Ballot Feedback Issue 225: Add parameterized tasks and functions
There is a proposal - adds a new sub-clause (2 pages)
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
The proposal (rev6) was unanimously approved by the SV-EC in the February 14, 2011 conference call.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
I approve 696 conditionally on the following corrections:
"system task $clog2 (see 20.8.2)" should be "system function $clog2 (see 20.8.1)".
"see 8.9 Static Methods" should be " see 8.9 Static methods"
"The subroutine call for the generic decoder, DECODER_f, is similar using the parameter value of 4." should have a comma after "similar".
21.
3491<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3491> Errata SV-AC trivial Incorrect local variable flow rule in F.5.4
There is a proposal - it is hard to spot, but it adds one parenthesis
Passed by email ballot 2011-04-25: 8y/1a/0n. Comment by Erik Seligman (abstained): I don't understand the formal semantics well enough to figure out if this is ultimately the desired expression, so I'll have to trust you guys!
Approve _x_ Oppose __
22.
3384<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3384> Clarification SV-BC Clarifications on integer data type signing
There is a proposal - correction in a few spots concerning 'unsigned'.
During its April 25 meeting, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
23.
3026<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3026> Errata SV-BC text Mess with $rewind and $frewind
There is a proposal - a couple of changes from $frewind to $rewind.
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
24.
3362<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3362> Errata SV-BC text "literal string" should be "string literal" - two more
There is a proposal - changes "literal string" to "string literal"
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
25.
3274<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3274> Errata SV-BC text 'shortreal' should be bold
There is a proposal - changes two keywords to being bold.
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
26.
3062<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3062> Errata SV-BC minor Extra space in %t example
There is a proposal - removes whitespace from several lines of a file-format example
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
27.
2977<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2977> Errata SV-BC text [EDITORIAL ISSSUE] Wrong characters used in LRM example for array literal
There is a proposal - fixes the font used for a "tick" in 1'b1
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
28.
2976<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2976> Errata SV-BC text wrong xref at end of configurations clause
There is a proposal - changes a cross-reference
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
29.
2595<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2595> Errata SV-BC text protect pragma is also standard
There is a proposal - adds one sentence to the "Standard pragmas" sub-clause. It now references the "protect" pragma.
On April 20, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved by email vote the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
30.
2271<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2271> Errata SV-AC minor sequence events require a clocked sequence
Duplicate
Approved by voice vote 2011-04-12: 8y/0n/0a. This issue is covered by 2412.
Approve __ Oppose __ Abstain _x_ (did not have time to look at it enough)
31.
3423<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3423> Errata SV-CC minor No way in VPI to trace instance-array connections across named-connections and dot-star connections
There is a proposal - adds a few paragraphs to 37.11 Instance arrays
On Mar-30-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
Approve __ Oppose _x_
This proposal discusses a .* connection to an instance array. I don't think this has been discussed in SV-BC, I don't think it is defined in the LRM. It is not clear to me that it is even legal, or if it is, what its semantics are. I think this has to be discussed in SV-BC first. (and also .name connections to instance arrays).
(By the way, in the diagram in 37.11, there are arrows from interface array and from module array to param assign. Should not there be an arrow from program array as well?)
32.
2929<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2929> Errata SV-BC minor ref_declaration should use list_of_variable_port_identifiers
There is a proposal - One-line bnf change
On December 3, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
33.
2395<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2395> Errata SV-BC minor Incorrect note attached to net_port_type production
There is a proposal - removes note 15 from the bnf.
On December 3, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
34.
1106<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1106> Errata SV-BC minor procedural assign to nonconstant part select and force of nonconstant bit-select
No change required
On December 3, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved to resolve this issue with no change because it was already addressed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
35.
2889<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2889> Errata SV-BC minor .named_port(expression) in ANSI-style port declaration list should reset properties
There is a proposal - adds a few new paragraphs
On January 28, 2011 the SV-BC concluded an email vote that unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
36.
2506<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2506> Enhancement SV-EC Non-trivial coverage space shapes and joint conditions are difficult to specify with covergroups
There is a proposal - this is a large proposal (17 pages)
Proposal for 2506 is approved on 5/23/2011 with one Absain [Steven: does not know in detail about the topic]
Approve __ Oppose _x_
In the syntax for cover_point, "[data_type_or_implicit]" should have no square brackets around it, like everywhere else in the LRM, as the "implicit" part of it can be entirely empty.
"Identifiers within the coverpoint are restricted to constant expressions (see 11.2.1), instance constants (...), or non-ref arguments to the covergroup." - I don't understand this. What does "within the coverpoint" mean? For example, the example contains "coverpoint x;". I would say that "x" is "within" the coverpoint, but it is a ref argument.
In order to give this big proposal the review time it deserves, I suggest to give it a separate special email vote, instead of bundling it together with a lot of other items.
37.
3385<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3385> Errata SV-AC Possible ambiguity when deferred assertion action block calls nested function
There is a proposal (2 pages)
Approved by voice vote 2011-05-17: 19y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __
Friendly font notes:
"always_comb begin : b1" - b1 should not be bold
"Upon the first failure of a2" - "a2" should be in code font
"function error_type is called with opcode==0" - "with" should not be in code font.
Regards,
Shalom
Shalom Bresticker
Intel LAD DA, Jerusalem, Israel
+972 2 589 6582 (office)
+972 54 721 1033 (cell)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/shalombresticker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Jun 10 04:52:22 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 10 2011 - 04:52:24 PDT