[sv-champions] RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

Good arguments in support of 4126. I withdraw my objection, and now vote
YES on this item.

Stu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stuart Sutherland

Sutherland HDL, Inc.

22805 SW 92nd Place

Tualatin, OR 97062

stuart@sutherland-hdl.com

+1-503-692-0898

Training engineers to be Verilog and SystemVerilog and UVM wizards!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:54 AM
To: sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

I don't believe that enhancements, especially small ones, are inherently
excluded from ballot comments.

I don't remember ever seeing such a restriction.

This change is not out of scope of the PAR.

There have in the past been enhancements submitted as ballot comments and
implemented.

Examples are in Mantis 324 and 2575.

In this particular case, the change is already supported by a number of
tools (including the Cadence simulator) and we have received code that uses
it. The change is a small one and easily implemented by those tools that do
not already do so.

To be precise, we have code that omits the for-initialization. The same
change was proposed for the other two parts of the for-loop control
construct for consistency.

And in the words of another committee member, "A more C-like for-loop is a
trivial enhancement that fixes a gap that surprises people."

Shalom

From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:03
To: Steven Sharp; Brad Pierce; Mark Hartoog
Cc: sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-champions] RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

Steven has a good point here. This is a really enhancement. There is nothing
wrong with the current specification.

Francoise

       '

  _____

From: Steven Sharp
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Brad Pierce; Francoise Martinolle; Mark Hartoog
Cc: sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

I got myself added to the email reflector too late to receive the original
ballot. I have now seen it in the votes of others. I want to comment
particularly on 4126:

I vote No on any change to this revision of the LRM for this comment. This
comment was not an issue with any change in this revision of the LRM. It is
a request for a new feature. It is questionable whether we would have
considered adding this feature to the current revision if the request had
come in a year ago, since it was not on our list of high-priority
extensions. It is certainly too late now to consider adding any new
features, during the balloting process. This request should be treated like
any other feature request, and considered for the next revision.

From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Francoise Martinolle; Mark Hartoog
Cc: sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

Hi Françoise and Mark,

I uploaded revised proposals for 4126 and 4145.

 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4126>
http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4126

 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4145>
http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4145

-- Brad

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.