| ID | Type | Change To | Category | Severity | Change To | Summary | Pro= posal | Note | Editor |
| 593 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.12 Routines should = be in table format | Editor should centraliz= e all routines in VPI chapter (move out from this chapter) | Y | ||
| 587 | Errata | SV-CC | text | 31.8.7 Please replace = the term "user" with a more accurate term. | Close | Duplicate of 572 | Y | ||
| 588 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.9 uses the term "user", and has grammatically incorrect sentences | Close | Duplicate of 572 | Y | |
| 583 | Clarification | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.8.4.2 terminology f= irst defined in a footnote? | Strike out footnote (no= t sure why not edited out before) -- "trace" is used already in Assertion chapter, no need to clarify. | Y | ||
| 567 | Errata | Clarification | SV-CC | major | minor | 31.7 arbitrary overloa= ding of the routines | Close | This mimics VHPI vhpi_c= reate. Idea is to minimize routines. | |
| 579 | Errata | SV-CC | major | text | 31.8.3.2 This section = should be replaced with a object model diagram | Keep the example (reque= sted by users when added) -- can possibly move to an Annex if desired. | The section is describi= ng application code -- the basic OMDs are in chapter and should be moved to = VPI like we did for the other API (assertion). Ditto for the remaining API (coverage). | Y | |
| 573 | Enhancement | Clarification | SV-CC | major | minor | 31 superfluous functio= nality added in the name of performance | Close | This is an enhancement.= Not clear what is desired to be omitted from functionality but from additional requirements posted seems the "extra functionality" need only be clarified. | |
| 570 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.8.1 Need prototype = for vpi_load_extension() | Posted (Abi) | Editor can handle like = 593 | Y | |
| 571 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | 31.8.1 unnecessary com= plication added for vpi_close() | Posted (Abi) | Proposal seems ok | |||
| 561 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | 31.4.2 vpi_free_object= () should be explicitly referenced here | Posted (Abi) | Proposal seems ok | |||
| 572 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | 31.8 make use of the t= erm 'user' | Posted (Abi) | Editor should handle th= is (along with rest of LRM) | Y | ||
| 560 | Errata | Clarification | SV-CC | major | text | 31.4.1 & 31.4.2.1 Overloading vpi_handle() is a bad idea | Reword to say: the rout= ine vpi_handle() when called with a vpiTrvsObj vpiType returns a value change traverse handle. | ||
| 559 | Errata | Clarification | SV-CC | minor | 31.4.2 Only need one c= ollection type | Close | The *vpiType* of a coll= ection handle can be vpiCollection, vpiObjCollection, or vpiTrvsCollection. This approaches leaves one generic type, and 2 specialized ones -- this architecture is meant to be clearer. Also a mimic of VHPI, see http://www.eda.org/sv-cc/hm/1573.html | ||
| 592 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.12 return values for functions is backwards | Ask Editor to handle re= turn value flip as part of 593 | Y | ||
| 590 | Errata | SV-CC | major | 31.10 Should provide d= lopen() like functionality | dlopen was discussed be= fore -- should review the reasoning behind current approach. | Not Immediate | |||
| 584 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.8.4.2 implies that = vpi_goto() creates new handle | Strike out the misleadi= ng text ("new"). | |||
| 581 | Clarification | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.8.4.1 Need to clari= fy the first paragraph | Can choose to move exam= ples to an Annex if desired. | A usage example | ||
| 580 | Errata | Clarification | SV-CC | minor | 31.8.4 section is not = necessary and colloquial | Can choose to move exam= ples to an Annex if desired. | Another usage example | ||
| 568 | Clarification | Clarification | SV-CC | major | minor | 31.8.1 initialization = and loading functionality is optional? | Close | Clarify the usage of initialization | |
| 565 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | 31.6 remove first para= graph of this section | Remove paragraph like w= e did for Assertion API | ||||
| 563 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | 31.5 diagram in figure= 31-18 needs to be redrawn | Diagram needs update --= unnamed classes (also drawn with the name field (blank) for some reason) have no = need (check with Francoise for history of this, also get the fm probably on reflector still). | ||||
| 562 | Errata | Clarification | SV-CC | minor | 31.5 needless restrict= ion on traverse object creation - poor terminology | Close | Bullet just says object= must have a value, clarify. | ||
| 558 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.3.3 rename section = to "Access availability" | Change section name | Y | ||
| 557 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.3.1 specific refere= nces to objects should be removed | Remove paragraph like w= e did for Assertion API | We did same for asserti= on -- should be integrated into VPI clause proper | Y | |
| 556 | Errata | SV-CC | major | text | 31.2 Beginning of this= section not needed in larger context of spec | Close | Motivation for need/usa= ge is warranted | Y | |
| 555 | Errata | SV-CC | major | text | 31.1 Introduction not = needed in context of the larger document | Close | Motivation for need/usa= ge is warranted | Y | |
| 589 | Errata | SV-CC | minor | text | 31.10 cannot set the u= ser_data field | Close | Duplicate of 572 | Y | |