[sv-cc] RE: Mantis proposal uploaded for 4130- please review

Shalom (& Jim)-
Thanks to you both for your "fine-tooth combs"- good inputs and corrections. Good catch on the header file errors, Shalom! I have just replaced the proposal for 4130- now showing a full compatibility table as well. Please confirm your issues have been addressed.
Thanks,
Chuck

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 9:17 AM
To: Chuck Berking; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Mantis proposal uploaded for 4130- please review

Hi, Chuck.

Some minor editorial problems:

1. Regarding Table 36-10 details 8 and 9:

" 8) vpiInterfaceDecl iterations allowed on vpiClassDefn objects

The vpiInterfaceDecl iteration (aliased to vpiVirtualInterfaceVar in IEEE Std 1800-2012) was allowed on vpiClassDefn objects in IEEE Std 1800-2005 and IEEE Std 1800-2009, but this was disallowed in IEEE Std 1800-2012. It was deemed to be misleading since vpiClassDefn objects are lexical-only scopes. This iteration remains allowed for vpiClassTypespec objects which can represent active scopes.

9) vpiInterfaceDecl iterations produce vpiRefObj objects

The vpiInterfaceDecl iteration (aliased to vpiVirtualInterfaceVar in IEEE Std 1800-2012) returned vpiRefObj objects in IEEE Std 1800-2005 and IEEE Std 1800-2009. This behavior was changed to produce vpiVirtualInterfaceVar objects in IEEE Std 1800-2012, which matches the aliased iteration type."

I don't think it sounds correct to refer to 1800-2012 in the past tense.
So I think "but this was disallowed in IEEE Std 1800-2012" should be "is disallowed" or "has been disallowed".
Similarly in detail 9, "was changed" should be "is changed" or "has been changed".

2. At the end of detail 8: "This iteration remains allowed for vpiClassTypespec objects which can represent active scopes," it should be either

"This iteration remains allowed for vpiClassTypespec objects that can represent active scopes."

or

"This iteration remains allowed for vpiClassTypespec objects, which can represent active scopes."

depending on whether you mean to refer to all vpiClassTypespec objects or only to some of them.

3. The first change in L.2 should be deleted. The header already says 1800-2012 in the ballot version, Draft 5.

4. There is a typo in the last replacement section in L.2. The original text contains aliases for vpi_compare_objects through vpi_scan, in alphabetical order. However, the replacement text for 2009 and the new text for 2012 contain instead vpi_handle_by_name through vpi_scan twice. The first part of the list was omitted and instead the second part was duplicated.

Regards,
Shalom

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Berking
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 22:10
To: sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-cc] Mantis proposal uploaded for 4130- please review

All-
I have uploaded a proposal for the 2012 VPI compatibility changes to Mantis 4130. This formalizes the changes described in duplicate Mantis 3357- re. the virtual interfaces changes from 1477.

Comments welcome soonest ! As I mentioned, I would like to have this "vote-ready" if possible by our next meeting.
Thanks,
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Received on Mon Jul 2 13:23:41 2012