RE: [sv-cc] mantis 2226 action completed

John, you have completed a heroic effort.  Thanks for all the work 

you've put in.

 

I finally decided to start batching my additional observations,

thoughts, and questions.  Some of these will be trivial, others

we may need to talk about as a committee. (These are only for

parts 2 and 3.)

 

(1) In "37.28 Class variables and class objects", in detail 3, why was 

the sentence "If the class var has the value of NULL, the vpiClassObj 

relationship applied to the class var shall return a null handle" 

removed?

 

(2) In "37.29 Constraint, constraint ordering, distribution', why isn't 

the sentence "For details on memory allocation property, see <cross 

reference to 37.3.7>" an additional detail, as many similar sentences 

are?

 

(3) In "38.x vpi_get64()", there's a double period after PLI_INT64.

 

(4) In "38.36.1 Simulation event callbacks," there's an extra period 

before "When" in the description for "cbReclaimObj".

 

(5) In "38.36.1 Simulation event callbacks," now that you've added a 

sentence to the description of "cbReclaimObj," I'm wondering if we 

should clarify it by saying "any associated callbacks should be 

considered invalid, except that any associated pending cbEndOfObject 

callbacks shall first be executed."

 

(6) In "38.36.1 Simulation event callbacks," in the description for 

cbEndOfThread, there's a stray space between "callback" and the ensuing 

comma.

 

(7) In "38.36.1 Simulation event callbacks," in the paragraph beginning 

with "The cbValueChange callback may be placed ...," the string 

"s_cb_data" should be rendered in a fixed width font, while "vpiObjId" 

should be rendered in bold.

 

(8) In "38.36.1 Simulation event callbacks," in the paragraph beginning 

with "For a cbReclaimObj callback...," the string "s_cb_data" should be 

rendered in a fixed width font, and the word "vpi" in "All vpi 

properties" should be changed to all upper case.

 

(9) Now that I'm taking a fresh look at "37.x vpi_release_handle()", 

I'm wondering if it would be better to say "The VPI routine 

vpi_release_handle() shall free memory allocated for VPI handles" 

instead of "for objects."  I realize we passed it as is once before, 

but I don't want the standard to give the impression that executing 

this routine will affect the underlying simulation in any way.

 

(10) Also in "37.x vpi_release_handle()," would it be better to replace 

"vpi_release_handle() shall generally be used to free memory created 

for iterator objects" with "vpi_release_handle may be used to free 

memory created for iterator objects"?  The existing wording, taken from 

the vpi_free_object() description, has bothered me for a long time 

because "shall" implies a requirement that doesn't really exist.

 

Regards, 

Jim Vellenga

 

---------------------------------------------------------
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381
Software Architect                              (FAX) 978-262-6636
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information."
---------------------------------------------------------- 

 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Shields, John
	Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:07 PM
	To: sv-cc@eda.org
	Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; Karen Pieper;
Bresticker, Shalom; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
	Subject: [sv-cc] mantis 2226 action completed
	
	

	Hi Everyone,

	 

	I have completed my action on 2226.  I changed it to review so
that I could revise files.  I've removed all the draft6 revisions and
added the changes baselined to draft7.   All the champion and reviewer
feedback has been incorporated. The Champions and the Working Group have
entrusted SV-CC to to this composition work and you have entrusted that
all to me.  In a perfect world, I would ask Charlie to close 2226 and he
in turn would ask Neil to remark it approved and turn it over to Stu.  I
think it would be helpful to have a quick review for composition errors
and to allow the friendly amendments to be seen in context.  I leave the
next action to Charlie to ask for review or close the item.

	 

	Because of the number of files, I have packaged them in 3 zip
files.  fm-clauses-mantis2226.zip contain full framemaker files for each
clause (except annex C).  This is what Stu asked for to minimize his
effort.  My notes on that are:

	 

	1) Some diagrams I could show deletions, others the real estate
for the deletion was reused and one sees only the addition.

	2) The annexes need normal editor work.  I did not have Annex C
from Stu at all, but the edit is trivial.  The other 2 annexes require
some minor numbering.

	 

	 

	fm-changes-only-mantis2226.zip contains framemaker files
representing only what has changed in a minimal fashion suitable for
efficient review. pdf-changes-only-mantis2226.zip contains pdfs of
those.  The framemaker change only versions were necessary(to me) for
composition and I used them to create the complete clauses.  Normally,
Stu would start with them.  It is his option to look at them and
validate that the edits to the full clauses were made accurately.  I
used paragraph tags properly in the full clauses, but the change-only
requires tag mods to insure that the numbering matched the document.

	
	Regards, John


	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


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