Hello, Please find attached a modified proposal for 1769. Hopefully it addresses all the outstanding issues. Regards, ed > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of > Warmke, Doug > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:29 PM > To: sv-bc@eda.org; Sv-ac@eda.org > Subject: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Email ballot: Respond by Friday, Februrary > 29, 8am PST > > Hello SV-AC, > > As discussed in the meeting of March 3rd, some of the comments > on 1769 were correctly incorporated, but others were not. > > This email should be considered the response from SV-BC on this issue. > > The remaining issues that should be addressed: > > 2. Change "severity task" to "severity system task". > This is necessary for consistency and clarity. > Also, in the first paragraph where the term > "severity system task" is first introduced, > a cross-reference to 19.9 "Severity System Tasks" > is required. > 3. The phrase "...their activation may be controlled..." > in the first paragraph should be changed to > "...their activation can be controlled..." > 4. The term "generate block" should be replaced with > "generate construct" throughout the proposal. > 5. Two usages of "will" are still in the proposal. > > To be specific, the following usage of "will" should > be changed to "shall". > > "If $fatal is executed then after outputting the message the > elaboration may be aborted, and in no case simulation will be executed." > > The following sentence should be changed as follows: > OLD: > "Elaboration system tasks are used to indicate if the vector is just > a 1-bit vector, otherwise it will issue information messages indicating > which conditional branches were generated." > > NEW: > "Elaboration system tasks are used to indicate if the vector is only > a 1-bit vector, otherwise informational messages are issued that indicate > which conditional branches were generated." > > Regards, > Doug Warmke > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On > Behalf Of Warmke, Doug > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:17 AM > To: sv-bc@server.eda.org > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Email ballot: Respond by Friday, Februrary 29, 8am > PST > > Doug's Votes: > > SVDB 1526 _X_Yes ___No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1526 > Proposal: > Covered by resolution of SVDB 1707 > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1707 > > SVDB 1709 _X_Yes ___No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1709 > Proposal: > Covered by resolution of SVDB 1707 > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1707 > > SVDB 1769 ___Yes _X_No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1769 > > Will change vote to Yes once the following have been resolved. > (Some are very minor) > 1. The $warning task in the intro area has an extra space after the '$'. > 2. The term "error task" is used in several places in this proposal. > It should be "severity system task", in light of approved Mantis 1641. > A cross-reference to "19.9 Severity System Tasks" should be made, too. > 3. In terms of generate constructs, why only conditional generates? > These would be useful in case and loop generates as well. > In fact, your 2nd example contains a usage inside loop generate. > 4. s/generate block/generate construct/g > 5. Various "will" should be "shall", as per IEEE convention > 6. In the first example, there is a module with a parameter_port_list > that contains an assignment to the illegal value of 12. In light > of Mantis 907, I think you should simply leave off that "= 12". > That would indicate that the user of the module is expected to > provide a parameter value, and that the parameter value better > be legal. One more minor suggestion would be to change the user > error message in this case to indicate the legal range of values. > Was: > $error("Parameter N has an invalid value of %0d", N); > Could be: > $error("Parameter N has an invalid value of %0d. Legal values are 2 > through 7, inclusive.", N); > 7. The generate/endgenerate in the 2nd example is not necessary. > But it could be kept for the clarity of the example. > > SVDB 2089 ___Yes ___No _X_ Abstain > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2089 > > Checkers is a huge topic. > I haven't had time to digest it fully, thus my abstention on this. > In general this addition to 1900 seems reasonable to me, though, > in terms of the incremental additions. > > Regards, > Doug > > -- > 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 10:04:54 PST