Re: [sv-ec] Feedback from the Champions

From: Neil Korpusik <Neil.Korpusik_at_.....>
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 11:15:03 PDT
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