Date: 2010-12-07

Time: 16:30 UTC (8:30 PST)

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=3901343

Agenda:

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

- Minutes approval

- Chair and co-chair election

- Email ballot results

- New issues

- Issue resolution/discussion

Addressing champions' feedback.

2387: Layout of 16.11 is inconsistent

Erik to make proposals consistent.

2557: Rules for passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are

not clear

Erik to modify the proposal and to remove the reference.

2804: Need to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock when

expression appears in procedural assertion

2934: Precedence and associativity of case operator is not shown in the

table

3113: Add port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences,

properties and checkers

2476: Need clarification about system functions $onehot, etc

- Enhancement progress update

3034: Allow continuous and blocking assignments in checkers

Arguments for system functions

3213: Update definition of sampled value

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

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

v[-x-xxxxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxxx] Ben Cohen

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

n[x-x--xx---xxxx---x-xxxx] Dana Fisman (Synopsys)

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

v[xxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n[-x.....................] Srini Venkataramanan (?)

|- attendance on 2010-11-23

|--- voting eligibility on 2010-11-30

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

Participants were reminded.

- Minutes approval

Scott: Mode to approve minutes

Tapan: Second

Vote results: 8y, 0n, 0a

- Chair and Co-chair election

Ed: Nominates Dmitry to continue as Chair

Samik: Second

Vote results: 8y, 0n, 0a

Scott: Nominates Tom to continue as co-chair

Samik: Second

Vote results: 8y, 0n, 0a

- Issue resolution/discussion

Addressing champions' feedback.

Skip over some issues since Erik is sick today

2934: Precedence and associativity of case operator is not shown in the

table

Tom: Move to approve new proposal for 2934

Scott: Second

Vote results: 8y, 0n, 0a

- Enhancement progress update

3034: Allow continuous and blocking assignments in checkers

Manisha:

Original Proposal: Update free vars in reactive region.

Also update blocking assignments & continuous assignments in

Reactive.

Solve in Observed region, but update free vars in Reactive.

But assume and assert referencing both a free var and a

design variable would give different results.

Likes the way Tom had summarized Scott's proposal.

Ed: What if we decoupled concurrent assumes and deferred assume statement.

Make them separate

Manisha: Currently only concurrent assumes participate in the

solving for free variables, correct?

Dmitry: No mention that only concurrent assertions participate in solving.

Manisha: No specific mention of concurrent assertions only, but language

referrs to clocking events, pointing to concurrent assertions.

Tom: Specifically allowing concurrent assumes would only complicate

things.

Dmitry: But might be useful, when you have no clock.

Scott: May give some ordering of solving.

Ed: We didn't define when deferred assertions would be solved.

Ed: If you separate domains so that concurrent assertion and deferred

assertion can't reference the same free var, then it may not matter.

Scott: Makes sense to have continuous assignment occur in Reactive region

using current values.

Free variables: no real place to solve for them

Possibilities:

Solve in the next simulation tick.

Maybe user specifies an event for solving.

Tom: Minimalist proposal: Feel that continuous assignments in checker

need to be update in Reactive region. The only problem with this

is when the assignment references a free variable. We could just

dis-allow this. The user could use a "let" construct instead and

it would work.

Dmitry: Free variables are very important. Don't want a solutions which

doesn't take them into account.

Scott: Very counter-intuitive to use sampled values for continuous assigns

Scott: Dmitry's example: sanity assertions would not pass.

Dmitry: Example would pass, according to the rules in proposal

Scott: Rules are starting to get complicated

Further discussion on continuous assignments within checkers.

Meeting adjourned.