P1800 Champions,

We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved state. There are 72 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put the first 40 into this first email vote. A lot of these mantis items are for closing without any changes being required. Several of the others are very small changes. Only a few have a more extensive set of changes. I am assuming that most of these will not be controversial.

Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please specify a reason. You have until September 21, 1pm (PST) to cast your votes.

I am planning to conduct another email vote for the remaining 32.

This is the first activity the Champions will be involved in for this PAR. Please let me know if you are planning to continue as a Champion for this Par. There will be a Working Group meeting on October 14th. I would like to know now many of you will be able to participate before this meeting is held.

Neil

1. 2571 SV-AC confusing assertion clock inference rule
There is a proposal - a simple one line reword
Approved by email ballot 2010-08-30: 11y/0n/1a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

2. 2205 SV-AC $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous
There is a proposal - added cross references and changed "assertion statements" to "assertions". See the discussion in the notes. Existing text addresses most of Stu's concerns.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-31: 8y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose _x_

This conflicts with the change in 20.13 by Mantis 2476.

3. 2080 SV-EC "::" is ambiguous in parameterized classes
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

4. 2022 SV-EC index value width extension for associative arrays
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

5. 2018 SV-EC Is a queue an array or not?
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

6. 1740 SV-EC Item 1457 did not correct section 10.5.3
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

7. 1672 SV-EC 18.9: "type" should be "option"
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

8. 0802 SV-EC Assigning too many elements to a queue
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

9. 0251 SV-EC multiple user defined bins for cross
sv-ec unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 28, 2010 to close this issue, duplicated.
Approve __ Oppose _x_ (don’t believe that it is addressed by 2506)

10. 2451 SV-EC Omitting body defaults
There is a proposal - several clarifying statements were added.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. Proposal2451v2b.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __

11. 1349 SV-EC fork/join_none: what if parent thread terminates without blocking statement?
There is a proposal - a simple clarifying change to one sentence.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

12. 2794 SV-EC Clarify queue methods return status
There is a 2-page proposal - several clarifying statements added.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. proposal-2794-2a.pdf
Approve __ Oppose _x_

The proposal contains:

"ADD to the end of 7.10.2.4:

If this method is called on an empty queue, its return value shall be the default initial value for the type of queue element (as described in Table 7-1).

If this method is called on an empty queue, then the method call shall have no effect on the queue and may cause a warning to be issued.

ADD to the end of 7.10.2.5:

If this method is called on an empty queue, its return value shall be the default initial value for the type of queue element (as described in Table 7-1).

If this method is called on an empty queue, then the method call shall have no effect on the queue and may cause a warning to be issued."

As noted in 0001067:

1. Table 7-1 does not specify values for real and chandle types.
2. Table 7-1 is labeled "Value read from a nonexistent associative array entry", not "Default initial values".

"default initial value" is not even correct for event types. The default initial value for an event is a "new event", as specified in Table 6-7.

(By the way, it looks awkward to begin two consecutive sentences with the same phrase, "If this method is called on an empty queue".)

13. 2956 SV-EC clarify class 'process' definition (9.7 vs 18.13.3, 18.13.4, 18.13.5)
There is a one page proposal - fixed a typedef and added missing methods from "class process" in 9.7.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. NOTE to the editor: Add cross references to the functions listed in this table.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

14. 2950 SV-EC virtual method prototype matching
Added a one-word clarification to one sentence and added a second sentence.
Approved unanimously in sv-ec meeting August 30 2010. 2950.pdf proposal.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

15. 2949 SV-EC LRM is silent about the semantics of referencing a clocking block output
What was one sentence in the LRM is now expanded to further clarify clockvars (inout, input, output).
Approved unanimously, sv-ec meeting August 16 2010. proposal 2949-1a.pdf
Approve _x_ Oppose __

16. 2734 SV-BC Mechanism to initialize an array to a constant value
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because the feature is already there.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

17. 2574 SV-BC class_scope parameter identifier missing in ps_parameter_identifier
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it's already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

18. 2533 SV-BC Equivalent to what?
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because made irrelevant by 2380.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

19. 2525 SV-BC Allow hierarchical references in $unit scope
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue as resolved by 2663.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

20. 1685 SV-BC 6.3.2 should be clarified as allowing string literals
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

21. 1223 SV-BC red hyperlinked BNF?
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

22. 1222 SV-BC clarify explicitly whether a module may instantiate itself
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because no change required.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

23. 1204 SV-BC Add lists of figures, tables, syntaxes
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

24. 1162 SV-BC A.1.4: list_of_port_declarations BNF rule
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue because it is already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

25. 1029 SV-BC some 1364 examples use 1800 keywords
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it is already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

26. 0991 SV-BC 2, 12: improving syntax boxes
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue, because it was already fixed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

27. 0968 SV-BC The 'list package' is not a package (D.1)
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue. List package has already been removed.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

28. 0154 SV-BC Jeita 29: Dual Data Rate needed in always_ff
I propose to close this issue as resolved by 0002396. [Shalom]
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

29. 0931 SV-BC BNF should be hyperlinked
Propose to close, same as 0001223. [Shalom]
SV-BC unanimously resolved by email vote ending Aug. 2, 2010 to close this issue.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

30. 1678 SV-AC Clarify that rewriting algorithm doesn't replace name resolution.
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

31. 2494 SV-AC 37.44 Assertion diagram missing restrict
VPI syntax diagrams -- added "restrict" to 37.45 and 39.3.2
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

32. 1763 SV-AC The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect sequence methods and events
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-24: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

33. 2412 SV-AC Allow clock inference in sequences
Assertions clock related changes (5 page writeup)
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose __ Abstain _x_ (I did not review this thoroughly enough)

Friendly amendments:

On page 2, change “If method triggered is used in a disable condition” to “If the method triggered is used in a disable condition”.

The added text to 16.14.6 duplicates the rules specified in 16.9.3. Duplicated text tends to accumulate inconsistencies. Is it possible to write instead, “The same rules are used to infer the clocking event as specified in 16.9.3 for sampled value functions.”? Also, 16.9.3 says, “the clocking event shall be explicitly specified as an argument or inferred from the code where the function is called”, whereas the proposed text for 16.14.6 uses the word “context” instead of “code”. I don’t think it matters, but it is better to be consistent.

34. 2754 SV-AC P1800-2009 : Can clock change in conditional branch of 'if' operator
no change required
Accepted by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

35. 2095 SV-AC Clarify meaning of distribution as condition for "disable iff"
no change required
Passed by voice vote 2010-08-17: 11y/0n/0a.
The LRM explicitly defines the behavior and semantics of distributions. This behavior is not always intuitive and may be revised in the future. However, given the existing definition, the interpretation is unambiguous.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

36. 2485 SV-AC terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
A couple of minor wording changes.
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-09: 8y/0n/1a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

37. 2938 SV-AC Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
A new example added to the end of 16.4.2 Deferred assertion flush points (a half-page proposal).
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-16: 11y/n/0a.
Approve __ Oppose _x_

There are some syntax problems with the example.
Some statements are missing semicolons at the ends of the line.
The function declaration is missing a declaration of the argument v.
The function should have an endfunction, and the always_comb ‘begin’ should have an ‘end’.

38. 2558 SV-AC Restriction inside checker construct
Removed one sentence and added a cross-reference in its place.
Passed by email ballot 2010-08-09: 9y/0n/0a.
The _1 version addresses the friendly amendments sent during the ballot.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

39. 2732 SV-AC Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4. Future value change
Expanded explanation of figure 16-4. A one paragraph proposal.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-03: 12y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

40. 2353 SV-AC 'classes' missing from description
A couple of minor changes and added a couple of cross references.
Approved by voice vote 2010-08-03: 12y/0n/0a.
Approve _x_ Oppose __

Friendly amendment: In the change to 16.6.2, it should be explicitly noted (in red cross-out) that the word “or” before “clocking blocks” is being deleted.