Re: [sv-ec] Feedback from the Champions

The amendments to 1789 were suggested by Shalom, not by the Champions,
and all of them were already included in the latest version of the
proposal, which Mehdi uploaded for me (because the issue was resolved,
I couldn't do it myself).

SV-1789_ext_forD3a.html
http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2225&type=bug

-Geoffrey


Neil Korpusik wrote:
> Attached to this email is the feedback from the Champions on mantis items that
> were passed by the sv-ec. One mantis item was approved, after making 3
> friendly amendments to it. All of the other items from the sv-ec were sent
> back to the sv-ec. Several of them were reviewed in detail by one or more of
> the Champions. The Champions decided to send the rest of them back to the
> sv-ec because of the large number of issues identified. The sv-ec needs to go
> through the feedback provided by the Champions and review those that had
> no specific feedback to ensure that they are ready for the Champions.
> 
> The next Champions meeting is 2-weeks from this Wednesday (Sep 5th). If
> any of the sv-ec mantis items are to be reviewed in that meeting they need
> to be ready by this Thursday.
> 
> 1648 - the Champions would like the sv-ec to review this mantis item to
>        see if it is applicable to covergroups.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Mantis items passed by the Champions after making friendly ammendments
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Id      Summary
> 
>  1789 Clarification of string behavior
>       svec Passed unanimously by email vote June 22, 2007
> 
>       Friendly ammendments:
>       - "1. Change this sentence (on page 128)": in Draft 3a, this is page 126.
> 
>       - In 2, "   bit [10:0] a = "\x41";       // assigns to a `b000_0100_0001":
>         the back-tic in the comment preceding 'b' should be an apostrophe.
> 
>       - In 4, "one of them can be a string literal which is implicitly converted
>         to a string type data object for the comparison": this appears twice,
>         there should be a comma before the word 'which'.

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