Re: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 11:00am PDT Friday May 1 2009

No on:
      id 44, svdb 2701
      id 181/182, svdb 2514

Abstain on:
      id 185, svdb 2342

Yes on the remainder.

Comments for "NO" votes below.

Gord.

Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:
[...]

>  
> 
> id 48  allow for future enhancement
> 
>       ___X_ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
> id 54  allow for future enhancement
> 
>       ___X_ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
> id 16, 17
> 
>    sv-ec agrees with sv-cc resolution to keep these regions for future use.
> 
>    Reject svdb 2632 statement.
> 
>    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
> id 19  No action required
> 
>     ___X_ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
> id 20    svdb 2634  (svbc issue)
> 
>     sv-ec votes as well to accept the proposal as well.
> 
>    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2634  
> 
>  
> 
> id 105 (id 110 is duplicate of 105)
> 
>      No action required
> 
>     _X___ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
> id 115  No action required
> 
>     __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> id 35, svdb 2705    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2705
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ids 36,37,38,39,40
> 
> svdb 2700    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2700  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> id 41, svdb 2681    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> [both svbc and svec will vote on this]
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2681  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> id 42, svdb 2682    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2682
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> id 43 and id 45,
> 
> svdb 2430    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2430   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> id 44, svdb 2701    _____ YES   ___X_ No
> 
> [both svbc and svec will vote on this]
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2701  



I'm going to object to this on the philosophical
basis that I think that this change (as well as
others) is going way too far in terms of trying
to dictate the details of vendor implementations
regarding warnings.  For issues such as warnings
(LRM mandated or not), vendors have legacy reasons,
optimization reasons, flow reasons, etc. to
not be too tightly bound by the LRM.  Vendors
will, if business or technical reasons dictate, ignore
any such mandates and trying to be too prescriptive
in this arena is almost certainly going to be
routinely ignored.  Mandating a warning is bad
enough, trying to dictate the details is not
something that I am willing to support.

If the reference to a single error per operation
is removed, I will grudgingly support the rest.





> 
> id 46, svdb 2706    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2706
> 
>  
> 
> id 47, svdb 2713    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2713  
> 
>  
> 
> id 57, svdb 2698    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2698
> 
>  
> 
> id 65, svdb 2723    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2723
> 
>  
> 
> id 67, svdb 2358    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2358
>  
> 
> id 80, svdb 2596    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2596
> 
>  
> 
> id 102, svdb 2718    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2718
> 
>  
> 
> id 106, svdb 2710    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2710
> 
>  
> 
> id 107, svdb 2711    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2711  
> 
>  
> 
> id 181, svdb 2514    _____ YES   __X__ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2035
> 
>  
> 
> id 182, svdb 2514    _____ YES   __X__ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2514

This seems to be too much to adopt on an email ballot.


> 
>  
> 
> id 183, svdb 2510    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510
> 
>  
> 
> id 184, svdb 2473
> 
> CLOSE 2473,  id 184 requires no further action:
> 
> [ Draft8 says
> 
>   An associative array type or class shall be illegal as a
> 
>   destination type. So this has already been made illegal.]
> 
>    ___X_ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2473
> 
>  
> 
> id 185, svdb 2342    _____ YES   _____ No    ABSTAIN
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342


I think the semantic issues that Steven has raised
do need to be addressed.


> 
>  
> 
> id 186, svdb 2288    __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288
> 
>  
> 
> id 192, svdb 1256     __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1256  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> svdb 2719 for the following  ids
> 
> id  58  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id  60  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id  61  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 104  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 108  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 112  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 117  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 118  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 119  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 122  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> id 137  __X__ YES   _____ No
> 
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2719
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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