Approved Minutes of Aug-18-2010 SV-CC Meeting.

ATTENDEES

11111111111
00000000000
00000000000
88766554221
10220212102
84139628730
xxxxxxxx*xx Charles Dawson
xxxxxxxx*xx Chuck Berking
-xx-xxxx*xx Francoise Martinolle
-x-xxxxx*xx Abigail Moorhouse
xxxxxxxx*xx Michael Rohleder
--x--x-x*xx Ying-Tsai Chang
xxxxxxxx*xx Bassam Tabbara
xx-xxx-x*-x Ghassan Khoory
xxxx-x--*xx Steve Dovich
xx-xxxxx*x- Jim Vellenga
xxxxxxxx*-- Amit Kohli
xxxxxx----- George Scott

1. Reviewed Patent information

- Chas reviewed the patent information which can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

2. Approval of agenda

Chuck/Steve APPROVED

3. Review minutes from last meeting (Aug 04-2010)

Chuck/Jim.  ACCEPTED

4. Liaisons

  - Chas reported on the P1800 meeting.  Other committees are making about the same amount of progress, except one
committee, which was making more progress.  Chas could not remember which one, but thought it was the SV-AC.  Chas
thought it would be good to assign champions to our highest priority issues so that we can make more progress on them.
 - No other meetings to report on.

5. Consent Agenda

6. Expedited Agenda Items

7. New business

• Discussed Wilson Snyder's proposal to add $tasks to DPI calls.
  • Want to be able to add VPI based tasks to DPI.
  • Might not be able to just add a $ to be beginning of a VPI user function or task. Thinks like vpiArgument would not work. Amit wanted to know more about the motivation behind the proposal. If the SV-BC approves the language change, there would be an implementation cost. Overloading a built in system task was not mentioned. Michael and Bassam think that having a different syntax so that there would not be any implied additional functionality. The implementor would have to know that it is being called by DPI instead of VPI and code accordingly. Should we ask the P1800 if this is within the SV-CC domain? We should make sure that the SV-BC realizes that there would be implementor cost associated with adding this kind of capability.
  • SV-CC recommends that the SV-BC to discuss the feasibility.
  • Move to direct the chair to ask the SV-BC to rule on feasibility. Steve/Chuck. ACCEPTED
• No other new business.

8. Reviewed items with proposals

• Item 3115
  • Doug is traveling abroad, which is why he did not attend.
  • George discussed the outstanding question with Doug.
  • Amit had an issue with the lifetime property. Export functions to SV have a static lifetime. Should have the same lifetime as the language. George said that there is a comment in the proposal that the default might be an issue. C is generally dynamic. The thing that remains static is the arguments and return values. Jim therefore thinks that we would be okay if we allowed the default to be static. George would discuss this issue with Doug. Amit and Jim can also write up the issue and send it to the reflector.
• Item 1477
  • Discussed the proposal. There are some compatibility issues, but Chuck thinks it is worth it. Gains more than it harms. Eliminates many refobjs and makes for more efficient programming. Francoise was interested in reviewing it, and has not reported yet that she has done so. We will postpone for one more time. Bassam wanted to understand why we need a vpiInterfaceExpr. Could we not just use vpiExpr?

Motion to Adjourn. Chuck/Michael. Meeting ended at 1:00pm EDT.

9. Reviewed SV-CC items with proposals (Straw poll only)

10. Old Business

11. Action items

%ACTIONSEARCH{ state="(?!closed).*" topic="SVCCActionList" }%

12. Items for consideration at the next meeting (they already have proposals)

13. Next meeting

The next SV-CC meeting will be on Sep-01-2010.

The next P1800 meeting will be on ??-2010.

-- ChasDawson - 2010-08-18