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

Here are my votes...

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
 

> SVDB  965 _X_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=965
> 
> SVDB 1004 _X_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1004
I am voting yes on the assumption that the conditional operator operand
lengths are self-determined, which seems to be suggested by the rules in
table 11-23 of Draft 3.  If my assumption is incorrect, then this proposal
is needs to be changed to reflect that expression context affects whether
the operands are zero extended or sign extended.

> 
> SVDB 1064 ___Yes   _X_No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1064
While the proposal seems like reasonable behavior, it is not backward
compatible with at least one major implementation.  The simulator I tested
the example on does what the current 1800/D3 says, ignoring the carriage
return and printing the entire string on the same line.  I will change my
vote to yes if the all EDA representatives on the committee agree that the
proposal is correct.
> 
> 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 _X_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1589
> 
> 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
> 
> SVDB 1641 ___Yes   ___No  --- see notes
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1641
I vote YES with the friendly amendment that subclause 19.9 be moved to
20.2.4.  This puts these message printing tasks just after $display,
$monitor, and $strobe. 
> 
> 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 ___Yes   ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1666
ABSTAIN: I did not have time to walk through the proposed examples to see if
they make sense, and to test the example to see if implementations agree
with the final expansion.
> 
> 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 _X_Yes   ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1831
> 
> SVDB 1850 ___Yes   ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1850
ABSTAIN: I don't know what the text that is proposed to be deleted was
trying to describe, and therefore am not sure if the text should be deleted
or fixed.
> 



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