RE: [sv-champions] Email vote ending August 1, 2011

My votes and notes are below.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland

Sutherland HDL, Inc.

stuart@sutherland-hdl.com

503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com

From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 7:35 PM
To: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote ending August 1, 2011

 
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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_

Stu: The proposal adds an enhancement to $stop and $finish: "If a different
argument value is supplied, the diagnostic message printed shall be
implementation-dependent." The proposal does not give any justification for
why $stop and $finish need this enhancement. To the best of my knowledge
they have worked fine for nearly 30 years as currently specified. Nor do
these system tasks fall under the domain of the AC committee. If $stop and
$finish need to be enhanced, it should be done by, or with the approval of,
the BC committee.

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 _X_ 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 _X_

Stu: None of the problems listed in this proposal exist in P1800-2012/D2. I
checked every hyperlink listed in the proposal and they match what the
proposal wants things changed to, and all the hyperlinks work. The proposal
does not say what version of the standard it was written against, but the
problems no longer exist. Recommend this be returned to the CC committee to
be verified against P1800-2012/D2 and closed as no changes needed.

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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 __ Abstain _X_

Stu: The proposed changes are not backward compatible with the 2009
standard. The proposal includes a note to this affect, but I am concerned
that other committees, vendors and users have not been given an opportunity
to consider the implications of this incompatibility. How much existing
code will this proposal break, and at how many companies? How difficult
will it be for EDA vendors to manage this incompatibility? Is there another
way to solve what this proposal is trying to accomplish without breaking
backward compatibility? I would prefer any concerns about backward
compatibility be addressed by vendors and users before this standard goes to
ballot.

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 _X_ 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 _X_ 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 _X_ Oppose __

Stu: General Note: Several proposals have code examples with slanted quotes
and accents, rather than straight quotes and accents. These are minor
editorial issues that I will try to catch and fix when I implement the
proposals into the LRM. Even if incorrect, all examples are informative,
not normative.

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