RE: [sv-bc] RE: Posted draft of Top-25 Presentation to 1800 WG

We have included a similar Mantis item (1647) to our top priority list, but it is obsolete, and the newer Mantis item (3025) belongs to SV-BC category. Several people (including me) did not marked 1647 as a top priority item since they believed that the updated 3025 item would be in SV-BC list. Even in this situation we can consider 1647 as SV-AC' "replacement" for 3025.

Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Maidment, Matthew R; Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-bc@eda.org
Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; KORPUSIK,NEIL; Karen Pieper; Even-haim, Daniel
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] RE: Posted draft of Top-25 Presentation to 1800 WG

I think a feature needs to be on one of the technical committees top 25
list to get the attention it needs, regardless of which committee ends
up working out the final proposal. Of course, no priority list can be
cast in stone for that a long period of time without some adjustments.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Maidment, Matthew R
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:46 AM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-bc@eda.org
> Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; KORPUSIK,NEIL; Karen Pieper; Even-haim,
Daniel
> Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Posted draft of Top-25 Presentation to 1800 WG
>
> It's not out of the realm of possibility for SV-BC, but not currently
a
> priority.
> The 1800 WG is the right place to begin resolution of this issues.
>
> I request this be part of the SV-AC report-out to the 1800 WG.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt Maidment
> mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Korchemny, Dmitry
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:07 AM
> >To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
> >Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; KORPUSIK,NEIL; Karen Pieper; Even-haim,
Daniel
> >Subject: RE: Posted draft of Top-25 Presentation to 1800 WG
> >
> >Hi Matt,
> >
> >As I can see, the Mantis 3025 "Introduce elaboration-time function
for
> type
> >compatibility check" is not among 25 top priority issues of SV-BC. I
> >believe that this enhancement is really important for checkers, while
> its
> >implementation effort should not be big. This item by its nature
belongs
> to
> >the competence area of SV-BC, though its main usage is expected to be
in
> >checkers. Should SV-AC own this item?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Dmitry
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> >Maidment, Matthew R
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:34 AM
> >To: sv-bc@eda.org
> >Subject: [sv-bc] Posted draft of Top-25 Presentation to 1800 WG
> >
> >Have a look and send feedback.
> >
> >http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/SV-BC%20Scope%20for%201800-2012.pdf
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Matt
> >
> >
> >--
> >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.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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