RE: [sv-bc] Email Vote Due May 2 Midnight PDT: Ballot Issues 152, 154, 155, 266, 287

 
 152 (SVDB 493) ___Yes   _X_No   
  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000493 

 154 (SVDB 499) ___Yes   _X_No  
 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000499
 
 155 (SVDB 501) _X_Yes   ___No
 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000501
 
 266 (SVDB 695) _X_Yes   ___No  
 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000695
 
 287 (SVDB 689) _X_Yes   ___No  
 http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000689
 
The two NO votes are friendly in nature.

For 152, the following appears in the proposal:

   NOTE: To have type matching or equivalence among multiple instances
of
   the same module, interface, or program, an unpacked structure type
must
   be declared at a higher level in the compilation unit scope than the
   declaration of the module, interface or program, or imported from a
   package.  For type matching, this is true even for packed structure
   types.

Each place the word "structure" appears in this text, it should
be replaced by "structure and union". I will vote YES
if this change is made.

For 154, there are some minor problems in the text (looks
like cut-n-paste error).  I had some offline discussions
with Brad, and we realized that Section 6.9.2 can be
greatly simplified if one realizes that any types that
match are also equivalent.

I'm attaching a modified proposal for 154 which addresses
the problems in the original proposal, as well as performing
simplifications and cleanup.  I would vote YES on this version
of the proposal.

Thanks and regards,
Doug Warmke