[sv-bc] RE: Email Vote: Respond by 8AM PDT Wed Apr 20

Regarding Brad's comments on Mantis 3151:

The factorial function is called recursively from the factorial function. But the text is describing how it is called from the initial block, where it is called iteratively from inside a loop, and the results are printed.

________________________________________
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R [matthew.r.maidment@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:09 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Rich, Dave; SV-BC
Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Email Vote: Respond by 8AM PDT Wed Apr 20

Thanks, Shalom.

To reiterate, the items that pass without comment are:

  2595, 2976, 2977, 3062, 3274, 3362.

On Monday we will discuss:

  2982, 3026 and 3384.

Matt

--
Matt Maidment
mmaidmen@ichips.intel.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bresticker, Shalom
>Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 PM
>To: Rich, Dave; Maidment, Matthew R; SV-BC
>Subject: RE: Email Vote: Respond by 8AM PDT Wed Apr 20
>
>I will not be able to attend next Monday's meeting.
>
>Regarding the items on the email vote:
>
>- Dave and Steven objected to Mantis 2982.
>
>- Brad objected to and Dave commented on Mantis 3384.
>
>- Steven commented on Mantis 3026.
>
>- Brad suggested an alternate coding of the example in Mantis 3151.
>Also, the sentence preceding the example says, "The factorial function is
>called iteratively and the results are printed."
>Should "iteratively" be changed to "recursively?"
>
>
>I will accept and implement what the committee decides at Monday's meeting.
>
>
>Regards,
>Shalom
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>> Rich, Dave
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:53 AM
>> To: Maidment, Matthew R; SV-BC
>> Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Email Vote: Respond by 8AM PDT Wed Apr 20
>>
>> I am in favor of all except 2982
>>
>> $urandom should now be used instead of $random, and any proposal that
>> touches existing cases of this should have this changed.
>> Also, the example in 25.7.2 should be made legal by the following:
>>
>> module cpuMod(interface b);
>> enum {read, write} instr ;
>> logic [7:0] raddr = $urandom();
>>
>>
>> For 3384, I agree the wording should use 'packed arrays'. I also agree
>> that you do need to say that a 1-bit scalar is unsigned. Otherwise you
>> could wind up with a variable that can only take on the values 0 and
>> -1 by default.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>> Maidment, Matthew R
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:02 AM
>> To: SV-BC
>> Subject: [sv-bc] Email Vote: Respond by 8AM PDT Wed Apr 20
>>
>>
>> -You have until 8am PDT, Wednesday April 20, 2011 to respond -An issue
>> passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible  voters
>> respond with a YES vote.
>> -If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a
>> reason.
>>  The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference
>> call.
>> -Note: The proposed action is captured in the bug note
>>        (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.).
>>
>> As of the April 11, 2011 meeting, the eligible voters are:
>>
>> Steven Sharp
>> Francoise Martinolle
>> Tom Alsop
>> Shalom Bresticker
>> Dave Rich
>> Gordon Vreugdenhil
>> Alex Gran
>> Arnab Saha
>> Eric Coffin
>> Brad Pierce
>> Mark Hartoog
>>
>> SVDB  2595 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2595
>>
>> SVDB  2976 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2976
>>
>> SVDB  2977 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2977
>>
>> SVDB  2982 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2982
>>
>> SVDB  3026 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3026
>>
>> SVDB  3062 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3062
>>
>> SVDB  3274 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3274
>>
>> SVDB  3362 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3362
>>
>> SVDB  3384 ___Yes   ___No
>> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3384
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
--
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.