SV-BC Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2016

Call Logistics

March 15, 2016 8am-10am PST

Join Skype Meeting: https://meet.intel.com/matthew.r.maidment/1HTBKG9M

Join by Phone:

+1(916)356-2663 (or local bridge access # via: https://dial.intel.com/)

Choose bridge: 5

Conference ID: 44150830

Action Items

Open

Jan 19 Matt: Track version specific changes to LRM as AI and file if needed.

Jan 19 DaveR: Check with some of the original contributors about the intent of 315 for clarification of 3211.

Feb 2 Matt investigate extending Mantis developer privileges to voting members

Update: Waiting on response from Lynn & Karen

From 3/15 Meeting: Everyone seems to be set to Update role. They report that they no longer have problems updating the issues. Perhaps Lynn made some changes behind the scenes.

Feb 2 Matt clear up currently immediate priority for existing 8 BC/EC issues

Feb 2 Matt set issues with proposals to immediate priority

Ready: 3562, 3548, 1188

Mar 15 Matt update 3763 to file new Mantis for Ben's comments and then propose to close.

Mar 15 Matt update 4528 as a duplicate of 343 and set to immediate.

Mar 15 Matt follow-up with Jonathan Bromley about participation and any issues with proposals.

Mar 15 Justin update formatting of proposal for 5540 to follow traditional style.

Feb 1 Dave R write a proposal for 2488

Opens

We are now operating under an approved PAR. Attendance tracking starts over as of this meeting.

There was a discussion in the 1800 WG about when a Mantis item requires a proposal versus passing directly to the editor. The WG agreed that a proposal is required if anyone in the technical subcommittee feels one is needed.

Agenda

• Review IEEE Patent Policy

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

Reviewed

• Mantis 4939

https://accellera.mantishub.com/view.php?id=4939

Ray requested a change in the wording. Justin updated proposal.

Ready for vote.

• Mantis 5540

https://accellera.mantishub.com/view.php?id=5540

Ray is aligned. Shalom reviewed and will further study.

Neil commented that the format should be changed. New text should be in blue, not highlighted. Justin noted that some new text needed to be blue, hence the highlighting. Neil emphasized the need for consistent formatting. Shalom asked that the fonts be consistent, bold, super/subscript, etc. be correct. These details are not to be left to the discretion of the editor.

Brad offered templates for proposals:

http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv/SV_LRM_template.doc

Dave Scott asked for the suggested best way to get started? Several commented that typically it is to copy the previous text and then update the fonts and indentation.

AI: Justin update formatting of proposal for 5540 to follow traditional style.

Steven suggested reordering new footnote to be tagged unions and unpacked structures instead of the current ordering.

Arturo asked about last sentence of 7.3.1, as it seems informational and unnecessary.

Justin explained that he is trying to bring consistency between 7.2 and 7.3.

After looking for the another location where packed unions are defined as vectors and not having success, it would seem this clarification is needed.

Justin will remove reference to tagged unions.

Steven pointed out that 7.2.1 does not state the implied range of the packed struct is [n-1:0].

Arturo suggested updating/adding an example that between two unions, some value is undefined and incorporate in a packed union to clarify the semantics. Justin agreed and will add another example with a packed struct.

Justin asked for additional scrutiny of the tagged union example to ensure its accuracy and effectiveness.

Justin will add last sentence of 7.3.1 to help clarify the new paragraph structure.

Arturo suggested changing the reference to signed/unsigned to 'signedness' and the default is unsigned. Similar wording should be updated in 7.2.1.

• Mantis 5259

https://accellera.mantishub.com/view.php?id=5259

Not yet ready. Ray provided some feedback via the mailing list. Mark will continue thread with Ray.

Arturo added that the current proposal is understood but needs to be reworded as proposed language introduces new, undefined terms.

• Mantis 4928
  https://accellera.mantishub.com/view.php?id=4928

Brandon replied in support via the reflector.

From the example it is unclear what part of c1 is soft. To complicate matters there's no such term as a 'soft expression or dist' to ease discussion of this scenario. Mark might pursue a new BNF production for new wording.

Arturo will need to give this more thought.

Steven seeking feedback with Cadence experts.

Discussion should continue via the reflector.

9:38am. Steven moves to adjourn. Arturo seconds.

-- Matt Maidment - 2016-03-29

Comments