| 1/4 Review |
Id |
Category |
Title |
Resolution |
Duplicate ID |
SV* Committee |
SV* Comment |
Champions Recommendation |
Champions Vote |
Champion
Comment |
|
4 |
SV-EC |
Add rs_rule precedence and example in Section 12.16 |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
5 |
SV-CC |
Compatibility of Section E.6.7 of SV3.1A with IEEE PLI aval and bval |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
25 |
SV-EC |
Pass by reference behavior of dynamically allocated objects |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
41 |
SV-BC |
Prototypes shouldn't require names of formals? |
duplicate |
169 |
A:1 |
Resolved
as duplicate of 169 by SV-BC on Dec. 6, 2004 with one abstention (for lack of
time) by Steven |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
50 |
SV-CC |
Change DPI svLogicVec32 representation to match PLI/VPI aval/bval
representation |
fixed |
0 |
A:1 |
Andrzej abstains for 50, because
he is against changing DPI to specify vendor internal format for logic types. |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
53 |
SV-CC |
VPI access to instances and packages is incorrect |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
54 |
SV-CC |
What is the vpiFullName of a package? |
duplicate |
56 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
55 |
SV-CC |
fullnames of declarations in the global scope of a compilation unit |
duplicate |
56 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
56 |
SV-CC |
vpi_handle_by_name on imported items? |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
62 |
SV-CC |
Conflicting vpiArray property descriptions in 31.10 |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
67 |
SV-CC |
Add vpiAssertionType to enumerations |
duplicate |
265 |
?? |
|
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
77 |
SV-CC |
VPI diagram for instances shouldn't refer to reg objects |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
131 |
SV-AC |
Jeita 6: Intersect may be confusing in section 20 |
not a bug |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
136 |
SV-AC |
Jeita 11: unclear assertion semantics |
not a bug |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
137 |
SV-AC |
Jeita 12: iff issues |
not a bug |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
155 |
SV-AC |
Jeita 30: In the Index, check isn't on page 199 |
not a bug |
0 |
Unanimous |
Pass as "to be corrected by
the editor" |
Unanimous |
|
|
172 |
SV-EC |
assignment of values to fixed bins is not specified |
fixed |
0 |
A:1 |
With proposal errata_172.htm,
(11-22-04) this is approved by 6 yes votes and one Abstain on Dec 6, 2004.
Francoise cast abstain vote; Sandeep's comments in the data base indicates
that he is not in agreement with the proposal. |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
205 |
SV-LRM |
Binary compatibility for packed arrays as fields and as elements of
unpacked arrays |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
215 |
SV-BC |
Scheduling of variable initialization |
not a bug |
0 |
Y:6, N:4, A:2 |
From the 12/6/04 meeting: Brad
moves to resolve this as not a bug.
Dave seconds. For: Brad, Karen,
Dave, Mark, Surrendra, *Matt (tiebreaker)
Opposed: Steven, Kathy, Francoise
Abstain: Danny, Don Motion Passes.
Karen will notify champions & P1800 about the status of this item |
Discuss |
Unanimous |
|
|
231 |
SV-EC |
Clarify the second paragraph in Section 16.5 |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
243 |
SV-BC |
Masked bitwise comparision operators |
duplicate |
213 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
249 |
SV-BC |
masked bit operation |
duplicate |
213 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
252 |
SV-EC |
default bin of a coverpoint in cross |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
275 |
SV-EC |
Several issues with section 3.7 String data type |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve, editor to work with
author on minor editorial problems |
Unanimous |
|
|
278 |
SV-CC |
contradiction between example 3 in E.9.4 and specification for packed
arrays embedded in aggregates |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
288 |
SV-CC |
Use a proper typedef for 32-bit values instead of 'unsigned int' |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
314 |
Encryption |
Proposal for IP Encryption Format for Verilog |
open |
0 |
In voting |
|
Insufficient opportunity for
review |
Unanimous |
|
|
318 |
SV-CC |
Utility fn to reveal if packed type actual form == canonical form |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
328 |
SV-BC |
Keyword compatibility |
fixed |
0 |
Not Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
332 |
SV-CC |
VPI support for new uwire net type |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
334 |
SV-EC |
null bytes in strings /* closed with proposals addressed in 275 */ |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
SV-EC to close as duplicate of
275 |
Unanimous |
|
|
335 |
SV-CC |
Annex F should be renamed to be more descriptive and normative |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
341 |
SV-CC |
Make svdpi.h function prototypes like those of vpi_user.h |
duplicate |
50 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
342 |
PTF |
s_vpi_vecval struct definition needs include guard for DPI
compatibility |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
V-282 |
ETF |
4.5: sign extension and bit-length rules not clear enough |
fixed |
0 |
A:1 |
Ron Goodstein abstains because
he is not familiar with the issue |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
197 |
SV-EC |
Closed with proposals addressed in 275 |
|
|
SV-EC to close as duplicate of
275 |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
203 |
SV-EC |
Closed with proposals addressed in 275 |
|
|
SV-EC to close as duplicate of
275 |
Unanimous |
|
| * |
271 |
SV-EC |
Closed with proposals addressed in 275 |
|
|
SV-EC to close as duplicate of
275 |
Unanimous |
|
|
320 |
SV-BC |
Misc. editorial typos in Draft 2 |
fixed |
0 |
Unanimous |
Approve |
Unanimous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|