RE: [sv-champions] Email vote ending August 1, 2011 - extended to the 5th

Neil,

When presenting a recommendation on http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3069 , it should be mentioned that, despite the name "Relax rules for $global_clock resolution", it does break backward compatibility.

I vote 'Yes' on all except one (2476). First, my reason for voting no on 2476, then a few notes to the editor.

--- http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2476 ----

"Each control bit shall be of type logic"

What happens if the control_bit, evaluated in a self-determined context, is not of type logic? Is a control_bit actually cast to logic type, as if it were evaluated in the context of an assignment to a formal function argument of type logic? For example, in the final example, what if instead of

   logic [1:0] bad_bits;

it were

   bit [1:0] bad_bits;

Or for example, if a control_bit were a vector, would it be truncated and the following assertions be equivalent?

    a1: assert ($countbits(myvec,bad_bits) == 0);

    a2: assert ($countbits(myvec,bad_bits[0]) == 0);

---- Notes to editor --------

--- http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3069 ---

I think the following phrasing is a little awkward, especially "from the place of"

"the hierarchical lookup rules described above shall be applied from the place of the assertion statement appearance in the source description, not from the point of the sequence or the property declaration. Similarly, the lookup rules shall be applied after the substitution of the actual argument in place of the corresponding formal argument inside the checker body."

and

"Since task calls do not carry substitution semantics"

---- http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2900 ----

The example need its keywords bolded.

The semicolon in "Upon executing b[2].x=5;," looks weird. Either it should be removed (preferable), or there should be a semicolon in the 2nd sentence of that paragraph, too. (And maybe a little elbow room for the '=' while you're in the neighborhood.)

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 6:23 PM
To: neil.korpusik@oracle.com
Cc: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-champions] Email vote ending August 1, 2011 - extended to the 5th

Hi All,

I am extending the deadline for this email vote to Friday August 5th.

Neil

On 07/23/11 19:34, Neil Korpusik wrote:
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved
> state. There are 15 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put all
> 15 into this email vote. All of these mantis items have proposals, some are
> quite small and others are large.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until August 1, midnight (PST) to cast your
> votes.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> P1800 Champions,
>
> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the
> resolved state. There are 15 mantis items ready for the Champions. I
> have put all 15 into this email vote. All of these mantis items have
> proposals, some are quite small and others are large.
>
> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please
> specify a reason. You have until August 1, midnight (PST) to cast your
> votes.
>
> Neil
>
>
> 1. 2476 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2476> SV-AC Need
> clarification about system functions $onehot, etc
> There is a proposal (7 pages)
> The proposal was opposed by the Champion's in the email vote which
> ended on April 8th, 2011. The proposal was updated based on the
> Champion's feedback. The updated proposal seems to work-around the
> problem that Dave saw with 1'b1 versus 2'01.
> The amended proposal passed by voice vote 2011-07-19: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 2. 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 (6 pages with several small changes).
> The proposal was opposed by the Champion's twice. This is the
> third time it has gone to the Champion's. There was only one
> objection from the most recent review.
> The amended proposal was approved by email ballot 2011-07-18:
> 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 3. 3015 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3015> SV-AC Examples of
> $fatal have bad arguments
> There is a proposal (1 page)
> This is the first time this short proposal has gone to the
> Champion's.
> Passed by voice vote 2011-07-19: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 4. 3459 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3459> SV-CC DPI section
> "H.6.6 Pure functions" is redundant and should be removed
> There is a proposal (2 pages) - deletes a sub-clause.
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On Apr-27-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 5. 3272 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3272> SV-CC two
> cross-references are not hyperlinked
> There is a proposal (3 pages).
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On May-11-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 6. 3522 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3522> SV-CC
> vpiStringConst, not vpiStringVal, as possible value of vpiConstType
> There is a proposal (with a one word change).
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On May-11-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 7. 3118 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3118> SV-CC Typo in
> H.7.7 Canonical representation of packed arrays
> There is a proposal (with a one word change).
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On Jun-08-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 8. 1352 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1352> SV-CC VPI 27.37
> "Multiclock sequence expression" error
> There is a proposal (deletes one diagram and updates another)
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On Jun-08-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 9. 3599 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3599> SV-CC svBitVecVal
> as reference type is missing asterisk
> There is a proposal (changes the font for one word and adds an *).
> I found it very difficult to locate this update. It seems to me
> that the Editor may miss it.
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> On Jun-22-2011, the SV-CC PASSED this proposal (unanimous)
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 10. 3385 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3385> SV-AC Possible
> ambiguity when deferred assertion action block calls nested function
> There is a proposal (2 pages) that adds new text.
> This is the second time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> Passed by voice vote 2011-07-12: 10y/0n/0a.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 11. 2412 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2412> SV-AC Allow clock
> inference in sequences
> There is a proposal (5 pages)
> This is the 4th time this proposal has gone to the Champions.
> The amended proposal was approved by e-mail ballot on 6/28/2011:
> 8y/0n/0a
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 12. 3069 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3069> SV-AC Relax rules
> for $global_clock resolution
> There is a proposal (6 pages)
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> The proposal was approved by the SV-AC on 6/21/2011 6y, 0n, 0a
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 13. 2794 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2794> SV-EC Clarify
> queue methods return status
> There is a proposal (2 pages)
> The champion's feedback of September 29th was addressed.
> Proposal 2794-3a was unanimously approved by the sv-ec in the
> conference call held on July 18, 2011.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 14. 2112 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2112> SV-EC Remove
> restrictions on NBA assignments to class members
> There is a proposal (2 pages)
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> Version 4 of the proposal (2112 NBA v4) was unanimously approved
> by the sv-ec in the conference call held on July 18, 2011.
>
> Approve __ Oppose __
>
>
> 15. 2900 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2900> SV-EC Associative
> array should consider the context of an lvalue to create an entry
> There is a proposal (1 page)
> This is the first time this proposal has gone to the Champion's.
> Version 4 of the proposal (2900 assoc lvalue v4) was unanimously
> approved by the sv-ec in the conference call held on July 18, 2011.
>
> Approve __ 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.