RE: [sv-cc] Ballot comment 171

Hi all,

May be "redundant" in the summary is confusing, it is not only "redundant" but *wrong* -- the correct property decl is in 37.47 which correctly takes you to property spec where you can get the clocking event and *disable condition* etc ... also goes to property expr (which can take you to sequence expr and more).

I would say this is highly editorial in nature -- strike-out.

Thx
-Bassam

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Chuck Berking; Jim Vellenga
Cc: ieee1800@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Ballot comment 171

Hi,

I'm not qualified to say what the proper change is. If it is to unbold 'property decl' in 37.52, fine, but I cannot say whether that is the correct change. But something needs to change.

Thanks,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Berking [mailto:berking@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:24 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Jim Vellenga
> Cc: ieee1800@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Ballot comment 171
>
> In looking these over, I'm not sure about the recommended change in
> 2582.  The diagram in 37.52 does *not* appear to be redundant (as per
> your comment there 2/15, Shalom).  If the diagram for
> "property decl" is
> simply *wrong* (see question below), the change looks OK.  Otherwise,
> "property decl" should be merely un-bolded in 37.52 or merged with
> diagram 37.47 ("Property declaration").
>
> Bassam- please comment !
>
> [ Are "vpiExpr" and "vpiClockingEvent" methods applicable to "property
> decl", or are these covered by 37.48 ("property specification")
> transitions ? ]
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: Jim Vellenga
> Cc: ieee1800@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Ballot comment 171
>
> Yes, Mantis 2582 is ballot comment 159.
>
> Mantis 2588 corresponds to both ballot comments 171 and 191, I think.
>
> Thanks,
> Shalom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Vellenga [mailto:jvellenga@verizon.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:20 PM
> > To: Bresticker, Shalom
> > Cc: ieee1800@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-cc] Ballot comment 171
> >
> > As I look at Mantis item 2582, it does appear that the
> SV-CC has not
> > approved the correction, although I believe that 2582 is connected
> > with ballot comment 159 rather than 171.  In addition, the
> change has
> > not propagated to draft 9 preliminary.
> >
> > The proposal for Mantis item 2588, which corresponds to
> ballot comment
>
> > 159, does appear to have been incorporated in the latest draft 9
> > preliminary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Vellenga
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > Jim Vellenga (jvellenga@alum.mit.edu)
> > Senior software engineer for high-complexity software
> development in a
>
> > production environment; skilled at team-building while retaining a
> > detailed technical knowledge of the project itself.  Excellent at
> > negotiating clear definitions (standards, interfaces, etc.) across
> > functional and industry boundaries.
> > 781-646-6778 --- http://www.jimvellenga.com
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> >
> >
> >
> > Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> > > It appears that ballot comment 171 (Mantis 2582) has not
> > yet had its
> > > proposal approved by SV-CC. Please check urgently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


--
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.