Hi Geoffrey, I have reviewed the update to mantis item 1789. The changes in section 2. of the latest proposal did not stand out very well. I have uploaded a new proposal that makes the changes in section 2. more obvious. The new proposal is SV-1789_for_champions.pdf Neil Geoffrey.Coram wrote On 08/20/07 10:11,: > 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'. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Korpusik Tel: 408-276-6385 Frontend Technologies (FTAP) Fax: 408-276-5092 Sun Microsystems email: neil.korpusik@sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Aug 24 13:28:30 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 13:29:32 PDT