Date: 2011-07-26

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=8878806

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--xxx---xxxx-xxx-xxx...........................] Ashok Bhatt (Cadence)

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

v[xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xxxxxxxxx--------xx---xxx--x-xxxxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxxx] Ben Cohen (Accellera)

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

n[-x-xxxxxx........................................] Shaun Feng (Freescale)

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

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

v[--x-xxx-xx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)

v[x-xx-xxxxx-xxxx-x-x..............................] Jacob Katz (Intel)

t[xxx--xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Chair)

v[xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxxx] Scott Little (Freescale)

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

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

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

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

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

n[-------------xx---xx-------x.....................] Srini Venkataramanan (CVC Pvt Ltd)

n[---x.............................................] Vibarajan Viswanathan (Marvell)

|- attendance on 2011-07-26

|--- voting eligibility on 2011-07-26

Agenda:

- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.

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

Participants were reminded of the IEEE patent policy.

- Minutes approval

Eric: Move to approve minutes

Scott: Second

Vote results: 9y/0n/0a

- Email ballot results:

Issue 3213 passed with friendly amendments: 9y/0n/0a.

Dmitry will call to email ballot on the amended proposal.

- Champions Feedback

3135: Verbal explanation of nexttime and always is misleading for multiple clocks. (Dana)

Friendly Amendment: Font Problem

Dmitry: Font problem in the original text. Fixed by Dana.

Erik: Move to approve the changes

Ed: Second

Vote results: 9y/0n/0a

- New issues

3672: hierarchical access to named block in assertion action blocks

- Issue resolution/discussion

3033: Allow procedural control statements is checkers

Discussion of the reviewers’ feedback.

Manisha, Erik: Why to disallow assignments in initial procedures?

Dmitry: There may be a conflict in assignments, semantics of free variables will be unclear.

Erik: Assignments in initial procedures may be convenient to users if the initial expression is big.

Jacob: Conflicts with always procedures seem even more important.

Dmitry: According to the definition of always_comb, always_latch, and always_ff, there cannot be assignments to the same variables, therefore initial procedures are useless.

Manisha: What about the initialization order?

Jacob: Undefined.

Manisha: Can initializations depend on checker arguments?

Dmitry: They can.

Ed: Maybe allow only constant initialization?

Jacob: Why to limit?

No objections were expressed about leaving the initialization rules as they are now.

Nested checker instantiation.

Manisha: This is not quite clear.

Dmitry: There is an erratum item in the LRM. We must address it and clearly state whether they are legal or not.

Ben: This feature may be useful for modular checker instantiation.

Anupam: We are talking about nested checkers in always procedures.

Dmitry: They have only meaning if you want to check the correctness of your checker always procedure.

All: Let’s make such an instantiation illegal.

Dmitry: Will fix.

Anupam: Why blocking assignments are illegal in an always_ff

Dmitry: Should their RHS be sampled.

Anupam: They should.

Dmitry: Indeed, in most cases it will be intuitive, but there may be pathological cases. Difficult for formal tool implementers.

Ben: Let’s keep things simple. Are let statements allowed in checker always procedures?

Dmitry: They are not. Will add them.

Tom: Always_ff can have a sequence event, but for covergroup I would prefer a regular always procedure.

Ed: Incorporate covergroup sampling into a sequence.

Dmitry explained the problem with procedural checkers without argument sampling.

Dmitry: Let’s disallow procedural instantiation of checkers with procedural code.

No explicit objections.

Meeting adjourned.

- Enhancement progress update

3206: Deferred assertions are sensitive to glitches

- Opens