Re: [sv-ec] E-mail Ballot Due Wenesday, June 10, 8AM PDT

Here are my votes.  I voted against 1486, as it seems to me we should
consider the proposal that is there.  I abstained on 2744, because there
was nothing attached to the Mantis item explaining why no change was
needed.


>1.  Mantis 2693
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2693
>
>    Ballot comment #138: Virtual interface in coverpoint?
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>2.  Mantis 2598   [this mantis item is duplicate of 2575, but it was decided
>        to vote on this]
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2598
>
>    Ballot comment #52 How can class type parameters be accessed?
>    Close as a duplicate of 2575
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>    Ballot comment #64 Access to class type parameters
>    Close as a duplicate of 2575
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>3.  Mantis 2575
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2575
>
>      Ballot comment #50 Is this.<param_name> or handle.<param_name> allowed 
for
>      class parameters or local parameters of a class?
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>      Ballot comment #52 How can class type parameters be accessed?
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>      Ballot comment #55 Related to specification of hierarchical class methods
>      for triggerring.
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___

Voting in favor of this resolving the actual ballot comment #55, which does
not match this description.

>      Ballot comment #59 can :: or . be applied to access a class parameter or 
a
>      param declared inside the class?
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>      Ballot comment #64 Access to class type parameters
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>4.  Mantis 2608
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2608
>    Ballot Comment #59 :: access and dot access to class value parameters and
>    local parameters should be allowed
>
>    Now handled by Mantis 2575
>    Close as a duplicate of 2575
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>5.  Mantis 2746
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2746
>
>    Ballot comment #113 "others" coverage bin example
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>6.  Mantis 2749
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2749
>
>    Ballot comment #53 class properties and methods are public
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>7.  Mantis 2750
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2750
>    Ballot comment #121 "expression" should be "constant_expression"
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>8.  Mantis 2748
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2748
>    Ballot comment #19 Preponed PLI region not included (but should be removed
>    from LRM anyway as it does not really exist)
>    No change required.
>    See the bug note for an explanation as to why the figure does not need
>    to be updated.
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>9.  Mantis 2745
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2745
>    Ballot comment #111 impicit coverpoint for cross
>    An enhancement request
>    Move to "Status=Resolved, Resolution=Open" and add the following bug note.
>
>    "The committee read and considered this feedback. the committee believes it
>     is too broad for the scope of the draft to implement at this time but may
>     be considered for future revisions."
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>10.  Mantis 1575
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1575
>
>    Ballot comment #105, 110: can we use net in expressions variable or
>    expresson.
>    NO change needed.
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>
>11.  Mantis 2694
>     http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2694
>    Ballot comment #140: this is out of scope of this version.
>    NO change needed.
>    Yes _X_ No ___ Abstain ___
>
>12.  Mantis 1486
>     http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1486
>
>    Ballot comment #190: this is out of scope of this version.
>    NO change needed.
>    Yes ___ No _X_ Abstain ___

There is a proposal present which seems to resolve the problem and generally
improve the LRM.  We should vote on it.

>13.  Mantis 2744
>    http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2744
>    Ballot comment #109:
>    NO change needed.
>    Yes ___ No ___ Abstain _X_

Would be nice if we at least had a bug note explaining the reason why
no change is needed.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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