SV-AC_Minutes_2016_05_18 < P1800

P1800 Web>SystemVerilogAssertionCommittee>SVACMeetingMinutes>SV-AC_Minutes_2016_05_18 (2016-06-01, ErikSeligman) (raw view)EditAttach
Minutes from SV-AC Committee Meeting

Date:    2016-05-18

Time:    16.00:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)

Duration: 1 hour

*Agenda*
   * Reminder of IEEE patent policy<br /> See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
   * Minutes approval
   * Email ballot results
   * Mantis items in progress
   * Opens

*Attendance Record*

<u>Legend:</u>

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 2016-03-09:

v[.x-xxx] Mehbub Ali (Intel)

n[.xx--x] Ang Boon Chong (Intel)

v[x-x-xx] Shalom Bresticker (Accellera)

n[.x----] Dennis Brophy (Mentor Graphics)

v[xxxxxx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

n[xx-xx-] Ben Cohen (Accellera)

t[x-xxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Synopsys - Chair)

n[xxx-x-] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)

v[xxxxxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

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

v[x-x-xx] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

   |- attendance on 2016-05-18

|--- voting eligibility on 2016-05-18

*Minutes*

<u>IEEE patent policy reminder</u>

<u>Minutes approval</u>

Erik: Move to approve the minutes from 27-Apr and 4-May-2016.

Ed: Second.

Motion passed: 6y/0n/0a.

<u>Email ballot results</u>

Mantis 4022

Erik: Since there were too few voters during email ballot, I move to reapprove 4022

Samik: Second

Issue passed: 6y/0n/0a

Mantis 3672

Ed: To address Shalom’s comments I can put dots after static variable declaration

Shalom: I am OK with this change

Erik: Move to approve 3672 with these changes

Anupam: Second

Issue passed: 6y/0n/0a

Mantis 3117

Anupam: Since the ballot results were non-convincing: 2y/2a/0n I move to extend the ballot deadline until 31-May.

Erik: second

Motion passed: 6y/0n/0a

Mantis 3555

Anupam: We can also approve 3555.

Ed: Move to approve

Erik: Second

Issue passed: 6y/0n/0a

<u>Mantis items in progress</u>

Mantis 5372

Anupam: What language is more appropriate: "shall" or "should"?

Erik: "shall" is consistent with what was written earlier.

Shalom: If clock ticks twice in the same simulation step, how many ticks do we have? Even it is not allowed to a clock to tick twice.

Ed, Shalom: Simulation step is not defined in the LRM.

Dmitry: This is SV-BC area, they need to define this term.

Ed, Anupam: Downgrade “shall” to “should”, and mark that if there are several occurrences of the clocking event at the same tick, the behavior is undefined

---++ Comments

%COMMENT%
Topic revision: r1 - 2016-06-01 - 21:50:52 - ErikSeligman
P1800