Re: [sv-bc] E-mail Ballot due 8am PDT, Monday, June 11, 2007

I voted "No" on 1004, 1589, 1641, 1831, with reasons provided.  I voted
"Yes" on the rest.


>SVDB  965 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=965
>
>SVDB 1004 ___Yes   _X_No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1004

The proposed description is incorrect.  It is only valid in the special
case where the conditional operator appears in a self-determined context.
This was always a flaw of most of these separate descriptions under the
individual operators, as opposed to the full description in the width rules.

The shorter operand is not lengthened to match the longer.  Both operands
are lengthened to match the length of the expression, which may be longer
than either of them.

And it is not necessarily true that the extension is sign-extension if
both operands are signed.  It is sign-extension if the expression is
signed.  There could be another unsigned operand elsewhere in the context
of this expression, which would cause the expression to be unsigned.  In
that case they would be zero-extended.

I would suggest that the replacement text be something like

"The first and second expressions are extended to the same width, as
described in [section_number]."


>SVDB 1064 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1064
>
>SVDB 1101 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1101
>
>SVDB 1111 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1111
>
>SVDB 1143 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1143
>
>SVDB 1257 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1257
>
>SVDB 1388 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1388
>
>SVDB 1400 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1400
>
>SVDB 1497 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1497
>
>SVDB 1499 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1499
>
>SVDB 1505 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1505
>
>SVDB 1562 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1562
>
>SVDB 1589 ___Yes   _X_No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1589

There is a minor problem with the text.  It says "Thus $sformat can be
used where a string variable would be valid."  This is not true.  A
string variable is valid as the left-hand-side of an assignment, while
$sformat is not.  I would approve this if "string variable" were replaced
with something like "string value", or "value of string type".


>SVDB 1597 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1597
>
>SVDB 1606 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1606
>
>SVDB 1620 _X_Yes   ___No  
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1620

(I.e. I approve deletion as a duplicate)

>SVDB 1641 ___Yes   _X_No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1641

I have not yet had the chance to review this.  Also, since it is a
significant enhancement, I am not sure it should be passed by email
without discussion.


>SVDB 1644 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1644
>
>SVDB 1660 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1660
>
>SVDB 1666 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1666
>
>SVDB 1746 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1746
>
>SVDB 1748 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1748
>
>SVDB 1749 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1749
>
>SVDB 1762 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1762
>
>SVDB 1783 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1783
>	
>SVDB 1788 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1788
>
>SVDB 1807 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1807
>
>SVDB 1821 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1821
>
>SVDB 1825 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1825
>
>SVDB 1831 ___Yes   _X_No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1831

With nested module declarations, this text could be interpreted as
saying you have to use the same style for all declarations inside
one module.  I would suggest that the added text "in one module"
be changed to "in the same declaration".


>SVDB 1850 _X_Yes   ___No
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1850

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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