Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote (part 1) Closes 12am PST April 24th

1371  __ Yes   _X_ No

a. First paragraph, 2nd sentence.

   If this sentence is kept in its current form there are a couple of changes
   that should be made to it.

   Add in the word 'at' and remove 'in a design'.

   From:
      If there is least one initial block within at least one program block in
      a design, the entire simulation...
   To:
      If there is at least one initial block within at least one program block,
      the entire simulation...

   This whole sentence could even be simplified to: (I prefer this form)
      If any program blocks contain initial blocks, the entire simulation...

b. The proposal uses the phrase "initial block" and "final block".

   I assume that these are correct, but I notice in the first merged version
   of the LRM it is using "initial procedure" in section 9, while the rest
   of that draft still uses "initial block". I can only find one use of
   the phrase "initial procedure" in draft 1 of 1800-2008, so I'm not sure
   what caused this change to propogate. There is a note from the editor
   on page 141 of the first draft of the merged document stating that the
   1800 LRM uses the phrase "initial procedure" so he made a bunch of changes
   to make the merged LRM consistent with that usage. That set of changes
   probably needs to be undone.

c. The proposal seems to change the intended behavior in one case

   One of the lines struck out is the following:

      When all initial blocks in a program finish (i.e., they execute their
      last statement), the program implicitly calls $exit.

   This semantic refers to each program block and has been completly removed
   from the proposal.

d. The following sentence is not easy to parse

   From:
      Calling $exit from a thread originating in an initial block of a program
      shall execute a disable fork from within as well as end all initial
      blocks in that program block.
   To:
      Calling $exit from a thread originating in an initial block of a program
      block shall cause all initial blocks within that program to execute a
      disable fork and then end.

Neil




Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote On 04/17/07 15:21,:
>  
> Based on April 16th, 2007 sv-ec meeting, we are conducting an 
> email vote on the following mantis items. 
> 1655, 1732, 1777, 1371, 1384, 1707, 1680, 1427, 1723, 1736.  
> Part 2 of email vote will start next week.
> 
> Please note that the operating guidelines are:
> - Only one (1) week to respond (Midnight April 24th 2007)
> - An issue passes if there are zero ** NO ** votes and at least
>   half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote.
> - Any NO vote must be accompanied by a reason.
>   This issue will then be up for discussion at the 
>   next conference call.
> 
> As of the April 16th meeting, the eligible voters are (total 11):
> 
> Arturo Salz,
> Cliff Cummings         
> Dave Rich   
> Don Mills
> Doug Warmke        
> Heath Chambers
> Mark Hartoog
> Michael Mintz
> Neil Korpusik      
> Ray Ryan        
> Stu Sutherland
> 
> Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason. 
> Send it to the reflector.
> 
> 1655  ___ Yes   ___ No   
> 1732  ___ Yes   ___ No 
> 1777  ___ Yes   ___ No 
> 1371  ___ Yes   ___ No 
> 1384  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1707  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1680  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1427  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1723  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 1736  ___ Yes   ___ No  
> 



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