Subject: Re: several proposal submitted for email voting
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 06:11:07 PST
Johny,
typically in other committees, anyone not voting is assumed to abstain.
It seems to me more logical than assuming they approved. Some people
may not vote because they don't care, forgot or were not available.
What other people think?
Francoise
'
At 04:39 PM 1/12/2003 +0200, Srouji, Johny wrote:
>Hi All,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>
>
>Attached are several proposals that have a second, and because they were
>previously discussed, we are likely able to pass them without further
>discussions. Therefore, I move that we vote on these topics through mail.
>
>
>
>Let me know if you have an issue w/ any of these proposals, or send your
>vote/clarification/discussions. Anyone not voting will be assumed to
>approve the changes. Voting will close by next Monday, 01//20/2003 at
>11:00 AM (right after our tele-call). If there is no discussion of any of
>these items by this date, then proposal will pass.
>
>
>
>Following is the list of proposals:
>
>
> * SV-BC2 - timescale vs. timeunit
> * This is a write-up of the behavior agreed upon at the 11/15 F2F
> * http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0224.html - posted 12/6/02 by Dave Rich
> * SV-BC44-3 self determination of assignment as expression
> * http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0271.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
> * SV-BC44-9 behavior of disable
> * http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0272.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
> * SV-BC44-15 removal of "changed"
> * http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0273.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
> * Clarification of operations allowed on unpacked arrays
> * SystemVerilog allows certain operations on aggregate unpacked
> arrays. From LRM section 4.2, it allows read and writes as a whole or
> slice of an unpacked array, but not as part of an integer expression.
> From this wording, it is unclear as to whether or not a comparison of
> two unpacked arrays would be allowed.
> * Karen proposed that we append a bullet to the first list of bullets
> that reads:
> * -- Equality operations the array or slice of the array, e.g.
> A==B, A[i:j] != B[i:j]
> * Also a small correction to the preceding paragraph
> * Replace:
> * The examples provided with these rules assume that A and B are arrays.
> * With:
> * The examples provided with these rules assume that A and B are
> arrays of the same shape and type.
>Regards,
>
>--- Johny.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 13 2003 - 06:11:44 PST