comments by gegouzhen12

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 10

									Comment IDDate      CommentName#       Email      Phone     Style           Classification
                                                                       Index #           Vote
                          14 EST
 1.12E+10 31-Jan-2011 22:21:32Ley, Adam           972       Individual
                                       a.ley@ieee.org 664 3015                           Abstain
                                                                          2 General Interest - Lack of time




                          13 EST
 1.12E+10 31-Jan-2011 17:19: 5 Ley, Adam           972       Individual
                                        a.ley@ieee.org 664 3015                         Abstain
                                                                           1 General Interest - Lack of time




                          12 EST         Martinolle 978 262 Individual
 1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 22:48:25Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283               11 Producer Approve


                          11 EST         Martinolle 978 262 Individual
 1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 22:22:59Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283               10 Producer Approve




                          10 EST         Martinolle 978 262 Individual
 1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 22:19:12Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283                9 Producer Approve




                             5 EST       Martinolle 978 262 Individual
 1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 22:11:9 Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283                8 Producer Approve
                           8 EST         Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 22: 4:55 Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283              7 Producer Approve




                           7 EST         Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 21: 3:21 Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283              6 Producer Approve




                           6 EST        Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 20:51:53Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283               5 Producer Approve


                           5 EST        Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 20:41:38Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283               4 Producer Approve




                           4 EST        Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 20:33:58Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283               3 Producer Approve
                           3 EST        Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 20:26:35Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283              2 Producer Approve




                           2 EST        Martinolle 978 262 Individual
1.12E+10 28-Jan-2011 19:51:17Francoise,fm@cadence.com 6283              1 Producer Approve




                          1 EST      d.messina@ieee.org Editorial Coordination Coordination
 1.1E+10 23-Dec-2010 9:46:27Messina, Don        7.32E+09              1
Affiliation Category Page Subclause         Comment                                           File
            General
ASSET InterTech, Inc.                       There's no mention of the revision history
                                            anywhere within the draft, not even within
                                            the Introduction ...




           General
ASSET InterTech, Inc.                       With regret that I did not flag this sooner and
                                            with ample time for the comment to be
                                            resolved in the course of the ballot, as I was
                                            unable to find a summary of the changes in
                                            the revision draft versus the prior version of
                                            the approved standard, I found myself unable
                                            to review the document in its entirety so as to
                                            be able to provide an authoritative approve or
                                            disaprove vote - hence my abstention.

          Editorial   100
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.6.8.1.2         Occurences of cannot or can should be replace
                                            with shall not and shall to follow standard
                                            terminology
          Editorial     82
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.5.4.4           The following sentecne does not use proper
                                            standard terminology:
                                            The key of a keyed list cannot be of type real.
                                            5.5

          Editorial     80
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.5.4.1           This sentence "In any context expecting a
                                            numeric object, a real object is acceptable..."
                                            would be better rewritten as:
                                            "A real object may be used (or is legal) in any
                                            context except ..."

          Technical     77
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.          5.2   The section before 5.2 describes the untype
                                            pseudo type. The section 5.2 lists the untypes
                                            expressions which do not include variable of
                                            the untyped pseudo type. Why? Is this an
                                            omission?
          Editorial     75
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.5.1.8      The text says that Multi dimensional lists (list
                                       of lists) are not supported.
                                       I think it would be more correct to say that
                                       the Language does not define lists of lists or
                                       that a list element shall not be a list.

          Technical     62
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.4.12.2.2   That section title is unexistent bits. However
                                       except for the first sentence, the others seems
                                       unrelated to that section.
                                       Please move unrelated description to another
                                       section

          Technical     58
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.4.10.5     Define what type comparable means.
                                       Should it say type compatible instead?

          Technical     50
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.4.7.2      The reference 5.5 looks incorrect it points to
                                       section titled Precision Rules for numeric
                                       operations.
                                       Please correct
          Technical     49
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.table 12   Consider adding wildcard equiality operators
                                       ==?
                                       and !=? like in SystemVerilog, where x and z
                                       values act as wildcard.
          Technical     48
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.          4.4   At the end of the section 4.4 Ranges, there is
                                            that sentence:
                                            "If the scalar type is an enumerated type, it is
                                            ordered by the value associated with the
                                            integer value of each type item."

                                            Either:
                                            It seems to me that this sentence does not
                                            belong in this section and should be better
                                            moved to a section talking about enumeration
                                            types.

                                            OR:
                                            if the consequence of this sentence is that you
                                            can define a range consisting of enumeration
                                            constants
                                            (since those are ordered by their value not by
                                            their positionin the declaration), a second
                                            sentence should describe this. It is not really
                                            clear how to define a range of enumeration
                                            values.
                                            Please provide an example

                                            Please clarify this

          Technical     26
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.4.2.3.1         The table in section 4.2.3.1 states that the
                                            force or release can be applied to a Verilog net
                                            or wire.
                                            First a net or a wire is the same thing. A
                                            verilog port
                                            can be a wire or a variable.
                                            can you force/release a variable.

                                            Second, is this force/release feature only
                                            applicable to Verilog wires? What about nets
                                            declared in another language like VHDL,
                                            SystemVerilog, SystemC. It seems that this
                                            description should be more general.
                                            Going further, I can imagibe you could force a
                                            variable declared in e if the DUT is described
                                            using the e language.

           Editorial                        This draft meets all editorial requirements.
      Proposed
Must Be SatisfiedChange     Resolution Status   Resolution Detail                        Other1   Other2
No    Make mention of       Out of scope        I'd think that this type of thing could
      the revision history,                     have been done in the drafts for team
      at least in summary                       approval. But, I don't see it being done
      and at least within                       in the published LRM.
      the introduction. If
      changes are
      extensive, consider
      listing them at an
      appropriate level of
      detail within a
      suitable annex.


No     Provide the           Out of scope       This is what the change bars were for
       balloters with a                         on the interim versions. In future,
       summary of the                           should we leave them in place for the
       changes in the                           team? Would that cause approval
       revision draft versus                    problems from IEEE?
       the prior version of
       the approved
       standard.


No                            Agree


No     The key of a keyed     Agree
       list shall not be of
       type real.
       5.5

No                            Agree




No                            Out of scope      Need more info if any change is to be
                                                made here.
No   ?              If the team agrees, I'll make the
                    change. But, I'd like an approval before
                    I do so.




No   Agree          Move info starting with "The [high :
                    low] order " to section 4.12.3, titled
                    "[…]". This section is the list slicing
                    operator and has "high-exp" and "low-
                    exp" in the list of parameters.

No   ?              Is "type comparable" okay? Or, should
                    it be changed to type compatible?

No   Disagree       What is wrong with the reference? It
                    goes to a section on precision rules for
                    numeric operators.

No   Out of scope
No    ?              Is this out of scope? Or, does the team
                     want this change?




No    Out of scope




Yes
Other3

								
To top