Date: 2016-02-24

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
• Email ballot results
• Mantis 5511: property_case_item syntax causes conflicts
• Mantis 3672: hierarchical access to named block in assertion action blocks
• Mantis grading (2858, 3027, 3099, 3552, 3555, 4037, 5476, 5517, 5520, 5549, 5551)
• 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 2016-12-15:

n[.x---] Mehbub Ali (Intel)

v[xx-xx] Shalom Bresticker (Accellera)

v[xxxxx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xxxxx] Ben Cohen (Accellera)

n[x----] John Havlicek (Cadence)

t[xxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Synopsys - Chair)

v[.x-xx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xxxxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

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

v[.xxxx] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

|- attendance on 2016-02-24

|--- voting eligibility on 2016-02-24

Minutes

IEEE patent policy reminder

Minutes approval

Ben: Move to approve the minutes from SV-AC meeting 2016-02-10.

Samik: Second

Vote: 6y/0n/0a

Meeting minutes have been approved.

Vote results

Both issues (5038 and 5549) passed.

Mantis 5511: property_case_item syntax causes conflicts

Two proposals: Manisha’s (end each clause with semicolon) and Dmitry’s (make last semicolon optional).

Anupam: Let’s keep it simple (in agreement with Manisha’s proposal).

Samik: What is the reason of Dmitry’s proposal.

Dmitry: More natural and to keep it more backward compatible.

Ed: Manisha's proposal is simpler to implement. Case property is very rare, so backward compatibility should not be an issue.

Dmitry: Need to check other similar constructs and be aligned with the language.

Ben: The LRM example ends each clause with a semicolon, therefore we can adopt Manisha’s proposal.

Manisha: The proposal is ready to vote.

Mantis 3672: hierarchical access to named block in assertion action blocks

Ed presented the proposal.

Ed: Will change in the example a deferred assertion to immediate.

Ben: Does LRM needs examples?

Ed: It would be clearer.

Ben: Examples look artificial to me: immediate assertions inside action blocks,

Ed: I saw such use cases.

Manisha: Examples do help.

Ed will post an updated proposal. Will hold an email ballot if enough time remains.

Mantis 3117: make it clear that rewriting algorithm (F.4.1) applies to checker and let

Manisha presented her proposal

Dmitry: The rewriting algorithm for checkers is not exactly the same, but similar.

Manisha: Will check and modify the proposal accordingly. Need also to consider let.

Mantis grading

3027

• Ed: This is about checking immediate assertions when assertions are turning on.
• Samik: Makes sense for top level deferred assertions only.
• Manisha: Agree. Difficult to apply for embedded assertions.

3099

• Ed: Need just to add a statement to make it aligned with events.
• Dmitry: There were an email discussion with SV-BV, need to look there

3555

• Dmitry: Small item, mostly editorial. Will handle

Opens

Manisha: I uploaded a proposal for 3117 (see above).

-- Erik Seligman - 2016-03-08

Comments