Date: 2011-03-29

Time: 16:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)

Duration: 1.5 hours

Dial-in information:

Meeting ID: 38198

Phone Number(s):

1-888-813-5316 Toll Free within North America

Live Meeting: https://webjoin.intel.com/?passcode=5080208

Attendance Record:

Legend:

x = attended

- = missed

r = represented

. = not yet a member

v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4 overall)

n = not a valid voter

t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie

Attendance re-initialized on 2010-07-06:

v[x-xxx-xxx...........................] Ashok Bhatt (Cadence)

v[xxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxx-x-xxxxx--xxx] Laurence Bisht (Intel)

v[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

n[----xx---xxx--x-xxxxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxxx] Ben Cohen

n[-----------------xx-x-xxx-x--xxxxxxx] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)

v[xxx-x-x----x-x-x--xx---xxxx---x-xxxx] Dana Fisman (Synopsys)

n[---------------xxxxx-xxxx-x-xxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale)

v[xx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)

v[xx-x-x..............................] Jacob Katz (Intel)

t[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Chair)

v[xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxxx] Scott Little (Freescale)

v[-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

v[xx-xxx-xxx--x-xx-xxx-xx--xxxxxxx-xxx] Erik Seligman (Intel)

v[xxx-x-xxx-xxxx-xxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxx.] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Tom Thatcher (Oracle - Co-Chair)

v[xx---xx-------x.....................] Srini Venkataramanan (CVC Pvt Ltd)

|- attendance on 2011-03-29

|--- voting eligibility on 2011-03-29

Minutes

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

Participants were reminded of the IEEE patent policy.

- Minutes approval

Erik: Move to approve minutes

Samik: Second

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

- Email ballot results

- Email ballot results

2476: Need clarification about system functions $onehot, etc

3191: Allow sequence methods with sequence expressions

Both issues passed:

2476: 9y/0n/0a

3191: 10y/0n/0a with friendly amendments

Jacob updated the proposal to address most friendly amendments.

It was agreed (Anupam, Jacob, Dmitry) to remove the sentence “reference to the formal argument stands as the sequence_instance in a sequence_method_call” since the rewriting algorithm has been updated to replace a sequence expression in the sequence method application with a dummy sequence identifier “item”.

It was also agreed (Scott, Jacob, Anupam) to remove the standalone reference to 16.14.6, and to enclose other “see …” references into parentheses.

Jacob updated the proposal.

Erik: Move to accept the updated proposal.

Scott: Second

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

- Issue resolution/discussion

Dmitry: There are several items related to 2476 that should be revised,

2387: Layout of 16.11 is inconsistent

Erik: This proposal is not relevant anymore since the addressed stuff has been completely rewritten in 2476. Move to resolve it as “No change required”.

Scott: Second.

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

3202: Clarify on whether certain system functions are allowed in classes, 'let', and other corner cases

Erik: This proposal should be addressed separately.

Dmitry: Since this proposal is the child of 2476 we could not have resolved 2476 without resolving this one.

Erik: The relationship for this proposal should be changed.

Dmitry: Will do.

3037: Introduce assertion system functions for 4-valued type support

Erik: This proposal is already covered by 2476. Move to resolve it as no change required.

Anupam: Second.

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

3054: $countones and $onehot system functions in constraints

Erik: Recommend to SV-EC to mark it as duplicate of 3202.

Dmitry: Will send them an email.

1675: Assertion system function syntax is not complete

Erik: This proposal is not relevant anymore. Move to resolve it as no change required.

Scott: Second.

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

2209: Add optional event control to deferred assertions in 2005

Erik: This item is not relevant since the LRM 2009 has an updated definition of embedded concurrent assertions, and there is no need anymore to introduce the introduce clocked deferred assertions. Move to resolve this item as no change required.

Scott: Second.

Vote results: 13y/0n/0a

- Enhancement progress update

3213: Update definition of sampled value

Dmitry introduced the proposal.

Dmitry: I updated the proposal to align it to the F2F recommendation: not to change the definition of sampled value, but to collect all sampling rules in one place, therefore I introduced a the notion of concurrent context. However I realized that there are important problems with using function $sampled, and I had to introduce the new function called $concurrent.

Jacob: Is “concurrent” a right term?

Erik: Yes, it is, since we are talking about evaluation context in concurrent assertions.

Scott: “Sampled value functions” is misleading now.

Dmitry: I can rename them to “concurrent value functions”. But there is still the $sampled function which is a sampled value function.

Samik: Do we need $sampled function?

Dmitry: Looks like we don’t. Will mark it as deprecated.

Scott: The new definition of future value functions is not clear since the concurrent values of free variables change. We can say that we take the concurrent value from the Postponed region.

Dmitry: Agree.

Samik and Erik volunteered to review this proposal. Dmitry will notify when he makes the changes.