Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote (part 1) 1371

In the 1364 standard, 'always' and 'initial' are described in Subclause
9.9, called

      "Structured procedures"

Subclause 6.2 says

     "Procedural assignments occur within procedures such as always,
initial [...],
      task, and function [...]"

Stu's consistent use of the phrases "always procedure" and "initial
procedure"
is accurate and sensible.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:01 PM
To: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.com; Mehdi Mohtashemi
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote (part 1) 1371

See below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote (part 1) Closes 12am PST April 24th
> 
> 1371  __ Yes   _X_ No
> 
> a. First paragraph, 2nd sentence.
> 
>    If this sentence is kept in its current form there are a couple of 
> changes
>    that should be made to it.
> 
>    Add in the word 'at' and remove 'in a design'.
> 
>    From:
>       If there is least one initial block within at least one program 
> block in
>       a design, the entire simulation...
>    To:
>       If there is at least one initial block within at least one
program
> block,
>       the entire simulation...
> 
>    This whole sentence could even be simplified to: (I prefer this
form)
>       If any program blocks contain initial blocks, the entire 
> simulation...
[DR>] OK. I don't know why I didn't think of that myself. :)
> 
> b. The proposal uses the phrase "initial block" and "final block".
> 
>    I assume that these are correct, but I notice in the first merged 
> version
>    of the LRM it is using "initial procedure" in section 9, while the
rest
>    of that draft still uses "initial block". I can only find one use
of
>    the phrase "initial procedure" in draft 1 of 1800-2008, so I'm not
sure
>    what caused this change to propogate. There is a note from the
editor
>    on page 141 of the first draft of the merged document stating that
the
>    1800 LRM uses the phrase "initial procedure" so he made a bunch of 
> changes
>    to make the merged LRM consistent with that usage. That set of
changes
>    probably needs to be undone.
[DR>] I'll stick with block
> 
> c. The proposal seems to change the intended behavior in one case
> 
>    One of the lines struck out is the following:
> 
>       When all initial blocks in a program finish (i.e., they execute 
> their
>       last statement), the program implicitly calls $exit.
> 
>    This semantic refers to each program block and has been completly 
> removed
>    from the proposal.
[DR>] That sentence is being moved to 16.2
> 
> d. The following sentence is not easy to parse
> 
>    From:
>       Calling $exit from a thread originating in an initial block of a

> program
>       shall execute a disable fork from within as well as end all
initial
>       blocks in that program block.
>    To:
>       Calling $exit from a thread originating in an initial block of a

> program
>       block shall cause all initial blocks within that program to
execute
> a
>       disable fork and then end.
[DR>] I don't think that's clear about what ends. How about

Calling $exit from a thread originating in an initial block of a program
shall cause a disable fork followed by the immediate exit of all initial
blocks within that program.

> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote On 04/17/07 15:21,:
> >
> > Based on April 16th, 2007 sv-ec meeting, we are conducting an email 
> > vote on the following mantis items.
> > 1655, 1732, 1777, 1371, 1384, 1707, 1680, 1427, 1723, 1736.
> > Part 2 of email vote will start next week.
> >
> > Please note that the operating guidelines are:
> > - Only one (1) week to respond (Midnight April 24th 2007)
> > - An issue passes if there are zero ** NO ** votes and at least
> >   half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote.
> > - Any NO vote must be accompanied by a reason.
> >   This issue will then be up for discussion at the
> >   next conference call.
> >
> > As of the April 16th meeting, the eligible voters are (total 11):
> >
> > Arturo Salz,
> > Cliff Cummings
> > Dave Rich
> > Don Mills
> > Doug Warmke
> > Heath Chambers
> > Mark Hartoog
> > Michael Mintz
> > Neil Korpusik
> > Ray Ryan
> > Stu Sutherland
> >
> > Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason.
> > Send it to the reflector.
> >
> > 1655  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1732  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1777  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1371  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1384  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1707  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1680  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1427  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1723  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > 1736  ___ Yes   ___ No
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.