Date: 2016-01-16

Time: 17.00:00 UTC (9:00 PST)

Duration: 1 hour

Agenda

• Reminder of IEEE patent policy
  See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
• Mantis grading
• 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 2016-12-15:

v[.x] Mehbub Ali (Intel)

v[xx] Shalom Bresticker (Accellera)

v[xx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xx] Ben Cohen (Accellera)

v[x-] John Havlicek (Cadence)

t[xx] Dmitry Korchemny (Synopsys - Chair)

v[.x] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

v[x-] Erik Seligman (Intel – Co-chair)

v[.x] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

|- attendance on 2016-01-16

|--- voting eligibility on 2016-01-16

Minutes

IEEE patent policy reminder

Mantis grading

Controversial or unclear items:

• 1296: Annex E does not cover all clocked derived forms
  Ed, Manisha: Too much work and high risk. Low ROI.
  Decision: Not to handle in this PAR
• 1502: Decision point definition
  Samik, Manisha, Ed: Difficult to solve, several attempts in the past to resolve it were unsuccessful.
  Decision: Not to handle in this PAR
• 1853: BNF for calls to $rose and other sample value system functions
  Manisha, Shalom: Low priority
  Decision: Not to handle in this PAR
• 2255: clarifications on expect
  Decision: Consider for this PAR
• 2367: Clarification: sampled-value functions are unaffected by disable-iff
  Mehbub: not obvious for a user. Need a clarification in the sub-clause dedicated to sampled value functions.
  Decision: Consider to add a clarification
• 2384: Rules about sampling for clocking block variables referenced in concurrent assertions are not clear
  Decision: Drop (to be voted)
• 2555: Clarify relationships of different local variable binding mechanisms
  Anupam: Will work on it
  Decision: Consider for this PAR
• 2858: Clarify the rules for assigning a value to a non-checker variable from within a checker
  Decision: Requires further discussion
• 2947: Module variables from within function or task not sampled, LRM and practice contradictory
  Decision: Requires further discussion
• 3027: $asserton doesn't report existing failures in immediate assertions: should the language require it to?
  Decision: This is an enhancement, out of scope of this PAR (need to discuss with Erik)
• 3099: action block triggering is not well defined
  Decision: Requires further discussion
• 3117: make it clear that rewriting algorithm (F.4.1) applies to checker and let
  Dmitry: Too complex to provide exact rewriting algorithms. One can add a sentence that the similar algorithm is applicable to checkers and let.
  Decision: Consider for this PAR
• 35532: 16.14.6 Sequence methods // .triggered need further clarification
  Decision: Requires further discussion
• 4037: Define false vacuity and contributions to pass/fail counters in simulation
  Decision: Requires further discussion
• 4201: Missing info with regard to untyped formal arguments
  Decision: Drop
• 4750: Allow immediate assertions in checker body
  Anupam: Immediate assertions are not allowed in a checker body, but only in structured procedures. Dmitry: The definition of a checker body includes structured procedures. One option is to change/drop/clarify the definition of a checker body.
  Decision: Consider for this PAR

• Dmitry will call to vote to resolve all items unanimously marked for rejection (or agreed at this meeting) as “no change required”.
• The members are requested to assume item ownership. The items having priorities must and high will be assigned at the next meeting

Opens

• The meetings will be held once in two week until the need arises to hold them more frequently.

Erik Seligman - 2016-03-08

Comments