P1800 Champions,

 

We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved

state. There are 47 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put the

first 32 into this email vote. 13 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.

 

Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please

specify a reason.  You have until October 30, 1pm (PST) to cast your votes.

 

Neil

 

  1. 2871 SV-AC Clause 16 does not forbid assertion local variables within clocking event expressions
    There is a proposal. Adding one sentence.
    Approved by email vote 2010-08-02 10y/0n/0a.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 1756 SV-AC The LRM does not indicate how the control tasks $asserton/off/kill affect verification statements in initial blocks
    There is a proposal, but it is obsolete.
    The resolution being voted on is "no change required"
    Approved by email ballot 2010-08-02: 10y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __ required"
  3. 2479 SV-AC Annex F.5.2.1 conflicts with changes from 2434
    There is a proposal. Mostly removing text from Annex F.4.1.1
    Passed by email ballot 2010-07-36 9y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  4. 2491 SV-AC Conflicting rules in 16.17 (D7)
    no change required
    Passed by email ballot 2010-07-26: 9y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  5. 2839 SV-AC Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage.
    There is a proposal. Changes are being made to one paragraph.
    Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  6. 2557 SV-AC Rules for passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are not clear
    There is a proposal. A few changes are being made to one paragraph.
    Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

I don’t understand the reference to 6.24.

  1. 2722 SV-AC Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16
    There is a proposal. Includes a new version of two drawings for examples.
    Approved by voice vote 2010-07-20: 13y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2552 SV-AC Confusing comments regarding nexttime operator
    There is a proposal. Appears to be mostly reformatting.
    Passed by email ballot 2010-07-05: 8y/0n/0a
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

The proposal does not address 16.13.13.

  1. 2551 SV-AC trivial example error
    There is a proposal. Several naming changes within a few examples.
    Passed by email ballot 2010-07-05: 8y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2934 SV-AC Precedence and associativity of case operator is not shown in the table
    There is a proposal. Adds one more item to a comma-separated list.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-29: 7y/0n/0a
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  3. 2927 SV-AC Precedence between sequence/property operator and normal expression operator
    There is a proposal. Adds one sentence of text.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-29: 6y/0n/1a (Anupam abstained)
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

No technical objection, but Table 11-2 contains more than just logical and arithmetical operators, and the sentence could be interpreted as making a distinction.

  1. 2362 SV-AC 16.14 mention of assertion control system tasks is unconnected
    There is a proposal. Moves one sentence after rewording it.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-22: 9y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 3113 SV-AC Add port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences, properties and checkers
    There is a proposal. Adding the same footnote to several places within the bnf.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-22: 9y/0a/0n
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

It took me a long time to figure out how this proposal answers the problem of the Mantis. A typical person reading the LRM is likely not to understand the reason that this footnote exists. I question that it really makes the BNF ok, but at least there should be some discussion of this in the main text, and an example illustrating the point. (Is there already?)

  1. 2955 SV-AC Checker example is wrong
    There is a proposal. Adds a comment to and changes a name in an example.
    Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2330 SV-AC Clarify that number_of_ticks argument to $past must be compile-time constant
    There is a proposal. Adds more text to one sentence.
    Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __

Friendly amendments: change “must be an elaboration time constant” to “shall be an elaboration time constant expression”.

  1. 2291 SV-AC the description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
    There is a proposal. It removes one sentence.
    Accepted by email vote 2010-06-16: 10y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2804 SV-AC Need to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock when expression appears in procedural assertion
    There is a proposal. 3 sentences are either modified or added.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-08: 11y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __

My bugnote addressed the description in the Mantis database,  but the proposal is correct.

  1. 2387 SV-AC Layout of 16.11 is inconsistent
    There is a proposal. Mostly reformatting existing text.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01: 9y/0a/0n
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

Conflicts with 2476.

  1. 1933 SV-AC 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
    There is a proposal, but the suggested change is not necessary.
    The vote is to close as "no change required".
    Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01 9y/0a/0n.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __

Please delete the proposal and clarify in a note that the vote is to close as ‘no change required’

  1. 3020 SV-AC Recursive property Restriction 4 is not consistent between Clause 16.13.17 and Annex F.7
    There is a proposal. A few clarifications to an existing restriction.
    Approved by SV-AC voice vote 2010-05-25: 11y/0a/0n
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2252 SV-AC Several symbols in Annex F are in green
    no change required
    Already implemented.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  3. 2916 SV-AC Wrong font in 16.4.2
    no change required
    Already implemented.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  4. 2480 SV-AC Bug note 7169 not implemented in 1668
    No change required
    Already implemented.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  5. 2484 SV-AC deferred cover should have only statement_or_null, not a full action block
    no change required
    Already implemented.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-27: 0n/0a/12y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  6. 2807 SV-AC Typing error: actual parameter in example not declared
    no change required
    Already fixed in 1800-2009.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-22: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  7. 2228 SV-AC Error in example in Clause 17.11.4
    no change required
    Already fixed in 1800-2009.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-22: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  8. 2747 SV-AC Typing error, missing () around property declaration
    duplicate
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  9. 2481 SV-AC Need to swap F.3.4.6 and F.3.4.7
    duplicate
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __

There should be a bugnote stating that is closed as a duplicate.

  1. 2232 SV-AC Incorrect region name throughout clause 16
    no change required
    Has already been fixed in the LRM 2009.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 2206 SV-AC Random simulation of non-deterministic free variables in checkers
    duplicate
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13: 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve __ Oppose _x_

Duplicate of what?1900?

  1. 1646 SV-AC Generate constructs within properties and sequences
    won't fix
    The requested functionality has already been implemented in checkers.
    Passed by voice vote 2010-04-13 0n/0a/10y.
    Approve _x_ Oppose __
  2. 3028 SV-EC constraints for unique array elements.
    There is a proposal.
    Adds new functionality (Uniqueness constraints)
    Approved on September 13 2010 sv-ec meeting, No abstain,
    one member [Dave R.] opposed: ( equivalence is too restricted, restriction on width).
    The objection as written in the minutes:
    "equivalence is too restrictive, would rather have a restriction on expression bit-width."
    Approve _x_ Oppose __

For consistency, the added section should have a syntax excerpt, like Syntax 18-3 through 18-6