Minutes from SV-AC Committee Meeting

Date: 2016-10-26

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

Duration: 1 hour


Attendance Record


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-xxxxx---xx-x] Mehbub Ali (Intel)

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

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

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

v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)

v[xx-xx-xxxxxxxx-] Ben Cohen (Accellera)

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

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

v[xxxxxxxx-xx-xxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)

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

n[x-x-xxxx-xx-x--] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)

|- attendance on 2016-09-26

|--- voting eligibility on 2016-09-26


IEEE patent policy reminder

Minutes approval

Erik: Move to approve the minutes from 5-Oct-2016.

Anupam: Second.

Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a.

Email ballot results

Issues 1853 and 3559 passed: 4y/0n/0a

Mantis items in progress

3928: Fix text in LRM encouraging incorrect coding of "clk iff enable"

Anupam: Why this change is needed at all?

Erik: It is better to get rid of misleading examples in the LRM.

Mehbub: && is glitchy.

Dmitry: There are several editorial issues in the proposal.

Mehbub uploaded an updated proposal.

Erik: Move to approve 3928.

Anupam: second.

Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a.

4183: Returned value of sampled value functions should well-defined

Anupam: Too many places to change.

Erik: It is important to clearly define the exact return values.

Shalom: Not all sections mentioned in the preamble are addressed in this proposal. Base version and target version are obsolete. Add a note that this Mantis addressed only sampled value and bit-vector system functions.

Anupam: 6.3.1 already defines what true is.

Shalom: It relates only to individual bits.

Anupam: Is it a real problem of not having exact definition of return values?

Erik, Shalom: The user already imply it, but this is not clearly stated in the LRM. Better to have resolved it in this PAR.

Anupam: I am OK with it.

Erik: Move to approve pending on editorial changes mentioned by Shalom.

Anupam: Second

Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a


Shalom presented the issue raised by SV-BC regarding 5041 that in 39.5.1 ‘handle’ should be used in the examples, rather than assertionHandle.

Erik: Move to recommend to use in all examples in 39.5.1 ‘handle’ rather than assertionHandle

Anupam: Second

Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a

Topic revision: r1 - 2016-10-26 - 20:16:41 - ErikSeligman
Copyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback