Date: 2010-10-19

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=9261632

Agenda:

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

- Minutes approval

- Champions Feedback:

Passed:

1. 2571 SV-AC confusing assertion clock inference rule

2. 1678 SV-AC Clarify that rewriting algorithm doesn't replace name

resolution.

3. 2494 SV-AC 37.44 Assertion diagram missing restrict

4. 2754 SV-AC P1800-2009 : Can clock change in conditional branch of

'if' operator

5. 2095 SV-AC Clarify meaning of distribution as condition for

"disable iff"

6. 2558 SV-AC Restriction inside checker construct

7. 2732 SV-AC Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4. Future value change

Friendly Amendments:

1. 2485 SV-AC terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions

2. 2353 SV-AC 'classes' missing from description

Failed:

1. 2205 SV-AC $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous

2. 1763 SV-AC The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks

affect sequence methods and events

3. 2412 SV-AC Allow clock inference in sequences

4. 2938 SV-AC Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred

assertions & short-circuiting

- Issue Resolution:

1675 - Only functions $onehot, $onehot0, and $isunknown are listed in

Syntx 19-12

Close as no further change required? (Covered by 2476)

2328 - Review and relax restrictions on data types in assertions

2904 - Clarify when disable iff condition must occur relative to

starting and ending of an attempt

3135 - Verbal explanation of nexttime and always is misleading for

multiple clocks

- Enhancement progress update

- Vacuity Discussion

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

v[x-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xxx-xxxxx-xxxxxx] Ben Cohen

v[x-xxx-x--xxxxxxx] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)

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

v[-xxxx-x-xxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale)

v[xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)

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

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

v[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

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

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

v[xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Tom Thatcher (Oracle ¿ Co-Chair)

|- attendance on 2010-10-19

|--- voting eligibility on 2010-10-19

Minutes:

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

Participanats were reminded of the policy.

- Minutes approval

Ben: Move to approve minutes

Anupam: Second

Voting Results: 7y, 0n, 0a

- Champions Feedback.

2485 Champions Feedback: Change "can" to "may" in the last sentence.

Will call for an e-mail vote this week if the proposal is updated.

2353 Champions Feedback: The word "or" should be in red strikeout text

Anupam has uploaded a new proposal

Anumpam: Move to approve the proposal:

Ben: second

Vote results 7y, 0n, 0a

2205: Champions Feedback: 2205 and 2476 both make changes to same section.

2205 should be rescinded.

Erik not present, so defer this issue.

1763: Champions Feedback: Not sure whether the "no change required" status

is because the LRM does cover the original question, or whether it

doesn't matter that the LRM doesn't cover the original question.

Ed has put a note into the Mantis items saying that the LRM in

Clause 20.11 answers the original question in the Mantis item.

Ed: Move to resolve issue as no change required

Anupam: Second:

Vote results: 7a, 0n, 0a

2412 Champions Feeback: Rules from 16.9.3 are copy/pasted into 16.14.6

Should use a cross reference instead.

Tom: Are all the rules the same?

Anupam: All the same

Laurence: 4th rule not the same?

Anupam: Think they are all the same.

Anupam: Will update proposal. We can talk about it next time.

2938 Chammpions Feedback: Syntax problems with the example,

Final work-around sentence is counter-productive

Erik had updated proposal

Seems to have fixed all the syntax errors in the example.

Not sure if the new proposal addresses Brad's last comment.

- Issue Resolution

1675 Erik suggested that we close this, because his proposal for 2476

should resolve this Mantis item.

Ben: Move to close as resolved (covered by 2476)

Anupam: Second:

Vote results: 7y, 0n, 0a,

2328: No recent progress. Defer to next week.

2904:

Proposal was dated 9/28. Should we call for an e-mail vote.

Anupam: Proposal contains the language that was agreed on.

3135:

Proposal data 9/28

Tom: Recall that in last meeting Erik had raised questions about whether

the description of multi-clock operation should be included in

the original description of the operator function, rather than be

added on in a second paragraph later.

Lawrence: Typo in second added paragraph: "nexttime is misspelled.

Ben: Grammar: "cycle which is not a tick" should be

"cycle that is not a tick"

Lawrence Should m+1 be n?

Tom: No, I believe that is correct

Defer item to next week.

- Enhancement progress update

Ben: Vacuity? What will be done?

Tom: Has agreement been reached on the definition for vacuity?

Ben: Seem to be converging, but still not in total agreement.

Need more discussion

Note: Mantis 2578 has been entered for vacuity definition.

It is in the new state, nobody has been assigned to it.

Meeting adjourned