RE: [Fwd: [sv-champions] Email vote ending October 17]

Hi,

Responses to Stu:

 1. 3564<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3564> SV-AC Sec 9.2.2.2.1 needs to clarify whether variables read in an assertion contribute to the sensitivity of an always_comb
There is a proposal (1 page)
Approved by voice vote 2011-09-27: 12y/0n/0a.

Approve __ Oppose _X_
I do not disagree with the changes made to always_comb, but the proposal does not cover always_latch and always @*. It might be that no change is needed for always_latch, since it follows the sensitivity list rules of always_comb. I did not check the wording of always_latch to see if it is OK. Certainly, though, the proposal needs to address whether the same new rules do or do not apply to always @*

[SB] No need to mention always_latch. 9.2.2.3 says, "All statements in 9.2.2.2 shall apply to always_latch." and 9.2.2.2 says, "There is an inferred sensitivity list that includes the expressions defined in 9.2.2.2.1."

Also, 9.2.2.2.1 simply does not apply to always @*. Just as the preceding paragraph,

"Hierarchical function calls and function calls from packages are analyzed as normal functions. References to class objects and method calls of class objects do not add anything to the sensitivity list of an always_comb."

is not a description of always @*, so is the new paragraph. It is simply a clarification of special cases related to the general statement at the beginning of 9.2.2.2.1.

In my opinion, there is no need to change the proposal.

 1. 3145<http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3145> SV-AC Need to clearly define "maximal property"
There is a proposal (1 page)
Approved by voice vote 2011-09-27: 12y/0n/0a.

Approve __ Oppose _X_
I believe this proposal violates a subtle rule of IEEE standards. From the IEEE style guideline (highlighting added):
Footnotes in text may be included in a standard only for information, clarification, and aid in the use of the
standard. Mandatory requirements shall not be included in text footnotes because these footnotes are not
officially a part of the standard, but they shall be included in the draft that is submitted to the IEEE-SA
Standards Board. Note that footnotes to tables and figures follow different rules (see 15.5 and 16.3).
Since the proposed new text contains definitions, it is my opinion that it needs to be normative text in the main body of the document, not an informative footnote.

[SB] I think that definitions are closer to being "information, clarification, and aid" than to being requirements, but it is possible to move them into the main text.

Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.