RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 10th 2007 - 1336

From: Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich_at_.....>
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 21:18:37 PDT
New proposal uploaded contains friendly amendments from Neil, Cliff. 

I did not take Mike Burns suggestion as I didn't think it was correct. A
process is allowed to block, even if it calls a function. If a process
makes a call, the process can return from that call.
Dave
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:59 PM
> To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
> Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 10th 2007
> 
> My votes are below.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  339  yes
> 1336   no
> 
>   I will change my vote to yes if the following changes are made.
> 
>   1. There appears to be something wrong with the sentence added to
9.3.2
> 
>      From:
>         Use restricted inside function calls (See 13.4) Functions
>       To:
>         Has restricted usage inside function calls (See 13.4).
> 
>   2. Section 13.4.4
> 
>      Brad offered the following suggestion. This would make this
change
>      consistent with the line immediately above it.
> 
>        From:
>           A constant function shall not have any fork constructs.
>          To:
>           A constant function shall not contain any fork constructs.
> 
>   3. Section 13.4.5
> 
>       From:
>          From within a function, a fork-join_none construct may
contain
> any
>          statements that are legal from within a task.
>         To:
>          Within a function, a fork-join_none construct may contain any
>          statements that are legal within a task.
> 
> 1384  yes
> 1560   no
> 
>    I will change my vote to yes if this one change is removed from the
> proposal.
> 
>    Why change the word prototype to syntax?
>       All of the Queue methods described in 7.11.2 mention the word
> prototype.
>       Why is it being changed to syntax for just the delete method?
> 
> 1594 yes, with the following friendly ammendments
> 
>    Two minor word-smithing problems:
>       1) operand   --> operands
>       2) wild card --> wildcard
> 
>     From:
>        The logical equality (or case equality) operator is a legal
> operation if
>        either operand is a class object or the literal null and one of
the
>        operand is...
>       To:
>        The logical equality (or case equality) operator is a legal
> operation if
>        either operand is a class object or the literal null and one of
the
>        operands is...
> 
>     From:
>        wild card
>       To:
>        wildcard
> 
> 1608 no
> 
>     section 8.4
> 
>     There is something wrong with this sentence
> 
>        "Assignment of a class object which class datatype is
assignment
>         compatible with the target class object"
> 
>     Something like the following seems more correct:
>         Assignment of a class object which is datatype assignment
> compatible
>         with the target class object
> 
> 1615 yes - agree to close (covered by 1336)
> 1679 yes
> 1715 yes
> 
>    Minor correction:
>      I think that the reference to clause 15 should actually be to
15.5.
> 
> 1871 yes
> 1897 yes
> 1928 yes
> 
>      If none of John's comments are incorporated into 1928 we should
open
> a
>      new mantis item to address John's feedback.
> 
> 2007 yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote On 10/02/07 08:17 PM,:
> > Hi,
> > Based on October 1 2007 sv-ec meeting, we are conducting
> > an email vote on the following mantis items:
> >
> >  339  1336  1384  1560  1594  1608  1615  1679  1715  1871  1897
1928
> > 2007
> >
> > Operating guidelines for sv-ec email vote:
> > - Only one (1) week to respond (Midnight October 10 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.
> > - Please indicate any friendly amendment that you think will change
> >   your vote to a YES, this will help with completing our task.
> >
> > - Notes:
> >   * 1615: the vote for mantis item 1615 is to close it, covered by
1336.
> >   * 1928: re-approve. If needed sv-ec can open another mantis item
> >
> > As of the October 1 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are (total
15):
> >
> > Arturo Salz,
> > Cliff Cummings
> > Dave Rich
> > Francoise Martinolle
> > Gordon Vreugdenhil
> > Neil Korpusik
> > Ray Ryan
> > Steven Sharp
> > Stu Sutherland
> > Heath Chambers
> > Don Mills
> > Mark Hartoog
> > Geoffrey Coram
> > David Scott
> > Mike Burns
> >
> >
> > Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason.
> > Send it to the reflector.
> >
> > 339  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000339
> >
> > 1336  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001336
> >
> > 1384  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001384
> >
> > 1560  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001560
> >
> > 1594  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001594
> >
> > 1608  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001608
> >
> > 1615  ___ Yes   ___ No    CLOSE 1615, covered by 1336
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001615
> >
> > 1679  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001679
> >
> > 1715  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001715
> >
> > 1871  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001871
> >
> > 1897  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001897
> >
> > 1928  ___ Yes   ___ No    Re-approve. If needed open other mantis
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001928
> >
> > 2007  ___ Yes   ___ No
> > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002007
> >
> >
> >
> >  339   typos in queue methods
> > 1336   Rules for allowed statements in a function
> > 1384   bit stream cast and pack/unpack for protected./local members
> > 1560   Queue delete() method for entire array
> > 1594  conditional operator for class handles incorrect
> > 1608  equality, inequality and conditional operator rules for class
> > handles
> > 1615   can processes spawned by functions execute blocking
statements?
> > 1679   string casting statement unclear
> > 1715   Triggered property of a clocking block
> > 1871   clarification needed for illegal/ignore transition bins
> > 1897   clarify "union of all significant bins" and "overlapping
bins" in
> > coverage computation
> > 1928   clarification of coverpoint value resolution (18.5.6)
> > 2007   7.9.4: rules about int type index for associative arrays
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Oct 10 21:19:08 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 10 2007 - 21:19:44 PDT