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

Hi Mehdi,

Here are my votes.

  Errata
     7 Clarification to 20.4.1, new 20.10
                _____ Yes _X__ No

On page 1 there are a couple of places where a dash is used, this can be
confused with a minus sign.

On page 2, the example at the bottom, I don't see any values of 4 showing
up, yet the description on page 3 says that on the 7th sample we have seen
3 four's.

As Ray mentioned, the html didn't come up properly for me either.

     8 Randsequence grammar issues
                ___X__ Yes ____ No

   173 Is the order of declaration in a covergroup
                _____ Yes __X__ No

I will agree to this if we make a couple of wording changes. Instead of saying
"Specifying value for the same option more than once in a covergroup definition
shall be an error."

   it should say

"Specifying a value for the same option more than once within the same covergroup
definition shall be an error."

(i.e. add the word 'a' near the front of the sentence and also clarify that
it is referring to the same covergroup definition).

   197 Is a String an array
                __X__ Yes ____ No

   203 Section 3.7, delete the sentence "and embedded null bytes are
included"
                _____ Yes __X_ No

I agree with Dave Rich on this one. Since the C++ STL String class
allows null bytes, SV should too.

   231 Clarify the second paragraph in Section 16.5
                __X__ Yes ____ No

   236 Behavior of the cycle_delay with 'Zero' value
                _____ Yes __X_ No

I agree with the intent of the proposal but the wording doesn't seem to be
quite right. "When the program execution reaches..." should be modified since
this construct applies to more than just program blocks. The first sentence
also appears to be redundant with what is already in the LRM. There are also
a couple of other minor wording changes that should be made. I can send input
on those later.

   238 Pipelined value access in clocking block
                ____ Yes __X__ No

As Dave mentioned, this is similar to $past

   240 Expression evaluation with cycle_delay
                ____ Yes __X__ No

As Arturo mentioned, it seems to be very similar to the existing expect.

Neil

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-720-4852
Member of Technical Staff                         Fax: 408-720-4850
Frontend Technologies - ASICs & Processors (FTAP)
Sun Microsystems
email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------