Minutes of SV-AC Meeting
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jul 26 14:37:35 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 26 2011 - 14:37:40 PDT