FW: [sv-ec](updated) Email Vote: Response requested by Wednesday May 11 2011 11:59pm

FWD to sv-ec,
I just noticed that Mark did not send this to the reflector.
All, please take a moment and send in your votes early, we could resolve
the issues during Monday sv-ec meeting if we get majority of votes in and
agree on the discussion.
Mehdi
[I will resend the email vote request next].

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hartoog [mailto:markh@synopsys.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:10 PM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
Subject: RE: [sv-ec](updated) Email Vote: Response requested by Wednesday May 11 2011 11:59pm

(1) Mantis 3046 ___Yes _X__No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3046
[Dotted names within inlined constraints]
[proposal: 3046_inline_dotted_names.pdf]

I have some concern over the wording of the proposal. It says:

"If the dotted name fails to resolve in the scope of the randomize() with object class, it shall be resolved following normal resolution rules in the scope containing the inline constraint."

I thought we had changed or were planning to change the LRM to say if the first token of a dotted name resolves to a variable, but later tokens cannot be resolved, it is an error.

(2) Mantis 2506 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2506
[Non-trivial coverage space shapes and joint conditions are difficult to specify with covergroups]
[proposal: Proposal for Mantis 2506_v5.pdf]

(3) Mantis 3531 ___Yes _X__No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3531
[null should be allowed in constant expressions]
[proposal file: 3531_null.pdf]

I have some reservations about this change. The LRM describes 'null' as a special value. It is only legal in a few contexts. There are no casting rules between 'null' and integer types. It does not have a self-determined type. I am worried we need more text to restrict where this can be used. Apparently it is already in primary, so we probably already have this problem.

(4) Mantis 3394 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3394
[invalid example for dynamic array]
[proposal: 3394_illegal_example.pdf]

(5) Mantis 2905 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2905
[BNF bug for attribute instance along with timeunits_declaration]
[proposal: 2905_attribute_timeunits.pdf]

(6) Mantis 3254 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3254
[18.5.6 if-else constraints mistakenly uses the work "block" when it means "set"]
[proposal: 3254_constraint_set.pdf]

(7) Mantis 3298 ___Yes _X__No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3298
[Use of 'this' in a coverpoint expression]
[proposal: 3298_this_covergroup.pdf]

What about the use of 'this' in randomize with blocks. Doesn't that need to be included in this section also?

(8) Mantis 3054 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3054
CLOSE as duplicate of 3202 (sv-ac)
[$countones and $onehot system functions in constraints]

(9) Mantis 2935 _X__Yes ___No
http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2935
CLOSE: already fixed in new version of the LRM and uploaded [Correction to example in 9.7. in 1800-2009]

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