Re: FW: [sv-ec] email ballot -- closes midnight October 7.2004

>
> Hi,
> Here is the list of errata items to be voted by email. Please
> email your votes as soon as you can, before October 7, we need
> to create the document for P1800 meeting (October 11th) by
> Friday October 8th 2004.
> Regards,
> - Mehdi
>
> ============================================================================
>
> ========
> Please respond to the following votes, mark X where appropriate,
> and place explanation for No vote. This is to approve the change
> proposal
> for each
> errata as indicated in the bug data base (or sent via email) updated
> after
> September 27th, 2004 meeting.
>
> Errata
> 7 Clarification to 20.4.1, new 20.10
> ____ Yes ___XX_ No
>
Please fixed typos addressed in http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/hm/2049.html

> 8 Randsequence grammar issues
> __XX__ Yes ____ No
>
Note: the semicolon after endcase in the example is a separate issue
that appears in the original text.

> 173 Is the order of declaration in a covergroup
> __XX__ Yes ____ No
>
> 197 Is a String an array
> ____ Yes __XX__ No
>
This proposal is not in the database and does is not formatted as we
agreed it should be
A string data type might not be a dynamic array, but is much a like a
queue of bytes, which is also a dynamic array in the loose sense of the
word "dynamic".

> 203 Section 3.7, delete the sentence "and embedded null bytes are
> included"
> ____ Yes __XX__ No
>
This proposal is not in the database and is not formatted as we agreed
it should be.

I disagree with this proposal as it removes functionality from SV3.1a
(like string concatenation) without giving a reason for its removal. SV
strings are patterned after C++ STL string classes, which allow null bytes.

> 231 Clarify the second paragraph in Section 16.5
> __XX__ Yes ____ No
>
> 236 Behavior of the cycle_delay with 'Zero' value
> ____ Yes __XX__ No
>
This proposal is not in the database and is not formatted as we agreed
it should be.

Please amend this proposal to address http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/hm/2041.html

> 238 Pipelined value access in clocking block
> ____ Yes _XX___ No
>
This is clearly an enhancement request. Similar functionalit is
availible with $past

> 240 Expression evaluation with cycle_delay
> ____ Yes __XX__ No
>
This is clearly an enhancement request, and I do not agree that having
expressions that block is a good idea.

>
> ============================================================================
>
> ==
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Oct 1 17:39:17 2004