Date: 2010-07-13

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

Duration: 1.5 hours

Agenda

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

- Minutes approval

- Email ballot results

- Issue resolution/discussion

2732: Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4?Future value change

2398: Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions

& short-circuiting

2491: Conflicting rules in 16.17 (D7)

2557: Rules for passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are

not clear

1756: The LRM does not indicate how the control tasks $asserton/off/kill

affect verification statements in initial blocks

1763: The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect

sequence methods and events

2722: Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16

2839: Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage

1853: The proposal was already submitted by Brad Pierce, but apparently not

voted on. The proposal is fine, and we should conduct an email vote.

2485: Submitted a proposal to fix the wording for immediate assertion types.

2558: Submitted a proposal to clarify the restrictions on automatic/dynamic

variable references in a checker declaration

- Enhancement progress update

- Opens

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[xx] Laurence Bisht (Intel)

v[x-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xx] Ben Cohen

v[xx] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)

v[xx] Dana Fisman (Synopsys)

v[xx] John Havlicek (Freescale)

v[xx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)

t[xx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel ¿ Chair)

v[xx] Scott Little (Freescale)

v[xx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

v[xx] Erik Seligman (Intel)

v[x.] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

v[xx] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems ¿ Co-Chair)

|- attendance on 2010-07-13

|--- voting eligibility on 2010-07-13

Minutes

1. Minutes from last meeting:

Eric: Move to approve minutes

Ben; Second

Voting results: 13y, 0n, 0a

2. E-mail Ballot results -- Dmitry

1. Unanimous approval

Some question over proper font for variable names in text, but will

leave

it to editor

John suggested to send to sv-bc for review.

Dmitry will send it.

3. Issue resolution/discussion

Issue with variables (e-mail thread)

Dmitry: Issue reported was that variable names used in assertions

before declaration behaved differently. Rather than create

an implicit declaration of the variable, the simulators

seem to resolve the signal names at elaboration time, just

like the variable was a cross-module reference.

Ben: Variable should obey scoping rules

Ed: Don't want to change the way it works now.

This was how we intended it to work, although it wasn't

written into the LRM.

Dmitry: Some people may `include a file with assertions, but

assertions may reference variables not declared yet

Ed: Even if we wanted to change it, it would affect

Ben: Should we add to LRM

Ed: yes

Manisha: even immediate assertions?

Ben: Doesn't immediate assertion have to be in a process

Ed: Immediate assertions are different.

Dmitry: Checkers?

Ben: Should it follow module instantations?

Ed: Should follow assertion rules

Dmitry: May have to ask Working Group for permission to work on this.

Manisha: What about procedural concurrent assertions?

Require declaration before use?

Dmitry: I think yes.

2557

Eric: One sentence Change.

John: Would like to think about this more; perhaps an e-mail vote

John: Three points in time: observed region, where match occurs,

reactive region where subroutine executes, and

Does automatic variable exist at the match time?

Dmitry: Will call for an e-mail vote

2732 Dmitry: Postpone to next meeting

2938

Eric: Short-circuiting

Eric: Is this documented?

When you hit flush point: we don't report attemts so far

John: Does proposal change anything

Eric: Not suggesting changing anything

Dmitry: Will defer to next meeting,

2491

Eric: Not sure of the problem:

Has sent e-mail to Doron

John: doesn't think there is a problem.

We're not being careful about sequence declaration, vs

instance.

Rule e doesn't exclude instances

Rule f specifies case where you have to have an instance

Ed: Is "maximal property" defined

Is solutionjust to define the term?

What does "maximal property" mean?

John: Thinks that maximal property meant the largest expression you

could get using the property grammar. That doesn't include

disable iff, but does include the clocking statement.

Eric: John will write opinion as a note on the Mantis item.

Should we open separate Mantis to define "Maximal property"

Ed: Do we really need rule F

John: Maybe it doesn't need to be a normative restriction

Ed: Rule e subsumes f

John: Rule f points out one consequence of Rule e

4. Enhancements progress update

Real Types

Checker output arg

Interfaces & checkers

Assertion system functions

Interfaces & checkers

Ben: Wrote a use model

Ben: Question: Should checkers be able to drive interface inputs

Dmitry: Yes

Ed: Sometimes checker could be used as constraint.

Ben: OVM, VMM typically use classes tied to virtual interface.

But you can't have checker in class. so why is this needed?

Still unclear on use model.

Ben: Original thought was just to allow a better connection to a

checker.

Tom: Don't necessarily need to drive interface inputs for formal.

Instead, an assume property would constrain the value of the

input.

Assertion system function

Eric: Concentrating on errata now.

Clock inferenceing & sequence

Anupam: Have a good idea of what to propose.

Real types

Scott: Concentrating on errata.

Checker output arguments

Lawrence has documented use cases

Next meeting: Next week.