RE: [sv-ac] Minutes of SV-AC Meeting 8/9/2011

Hi Dmitry:

I have uploaded a new version of 2328 (_v5). I believe it addresses the concerns that have been raised to this point.

After looking more carefully at the definition of the event data type, I don't believe additional changes are needed to the sampling rules. The sampling rules for static variables should also apply to variables of event data type.

In 6.17, it is stated:

"The event data type provides a handle to a synchronization object. The object referenced by an event variable can be explicitly triggered and waited for. Furthermore, event variables have a persistent triggered state that lasts for the duration of the entire time step. Its occurrence can be recognized by using the event control syntax described in 9.4.2.

An event variable can be assigned or compared to another event variable or assigned the special value null. When assigned another event variable, both event variables refer to the same synchronization object. When assigned null, the association between the synchronization object and the event variable is broken.

If an initial value is not specified in the declaration of an event variable, then the variable is initialized to a new synchronization object."

The handle is what gets sampled. I don't see a difference between sampling an integer and an event variable that would require additional explanation. Do you disagree?

Thanks,
Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Thomas J Thatcher
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:28 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] Minutes of SV-AC Meeting 8/9/2011
>
> Minutes of SV-AC Meeting
> Date: 2011-08-09
> Time: 16:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)
> Duration: 2 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=6847141
>
>
> Agenda:
> -------
>
> - Reminder of IEEE patent policy.
> See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
>
> - Minutes approval
>
> - Email ballot results:
> Issue 2578 passed with friendly amendments. One negative vote sent
> late.
> Issue 3033 failed: 5y/0n/2a. . One negative vote sent late.
>
> - Draft2 review
>
> - New issues
>
> - Champions¿ feedback
> 3069 Relax rules for $global_clock resolution
> 3015 Examples of $fatal have bad arguments
> 3113 Add port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences,
> properties and checkers
> 2476 Need clarification about system functions $onehot, etc
> 3385 Possible ambiguity when deferred assertion action block
> calls
> nested function
>
> - Issue resolution/discussion
> 2328: Review and relax restrictions on data types in assertions
> 3206: Deferred assertions are sensitive to glitches
> 3295: need a way to control only asserts/covers/assume directives
>
> - Opens
>
> 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[-xxx--xxx---xxxx-xxx-xxx...........................] Ashok Bhatt
> (Cadence)
> v[x--xxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxx-x-xxxxx--xxx] Laurence
> Bisht
> (Intel)
> v[xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny
> (Synopsys)
> v[xxxxxxxxxxx--------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---x-xxx-xx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor
> (Cadence)
> n[--x-xx-xxxxx-xxxx-x-x..............................] Jacob Katz
> (Intel)
> t[xxxxx--xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Dmitry
> Korchemny (Intel ¿ Chair)
> v[xxxxxxx-xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxxx] Scott Little
> (Freescale)
> v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx] Manisha
> Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
> v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Anupam
> Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)
> v[xxxxxxx--xxx-xxxx-xxx-xxx--x-xx-xxx-xx--xxxxxxx-xxx] Erik Seligman
> (Intel)
> v[xx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-x-xxx-xxxx-xxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxx.] Samik
> Sengupta
> (Synopsys)
> v[x-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 2011-08-09
> |--- voting eligibility on 2011-08-09
>
>
> Minutes
> -------
> - 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
> Ben: Move to approve minutes
> Erik: Second
> Vote results: 10y, 0n, 0a
>
> - Email ballot results:
> Issue 2578 passed with friendly amendments. One negative vote sent
> late.
> Issue 3033 failed: 5y/0n/2a. . One negative vote sent late.
> 5 positive votes, but not a quorum.
>
> 3033:
> Comment by Erik:
> Would deferred assertion in a checker be illegal if the checker
> is
> instantiated in a procedure? That's because definition of
> stand-
> alone deferred assertion is treated as if it is inside an
> always_comb.
> Dmitry: will change language of proposal to allow this.
>
> Comment by Anupam: Should you use const'(rst) in example.
> Otherwise the example doesn't make sense.
> Tom: Should change definition so that any signals appearing in a
> sensitivity list get current values throughout the procedure
> Dmitry: Will make changes, upload, and call to vote again.
>
> - Draft2 review
> Dmitry: Reminder to all to review their sections of Draft 2.
>
> - Champions' feedback
> 3069 Relax rules for $global_clock resolution
> Dmitry: Will send e-mail to other committees asking for review.
>
>
> 3015 Examples of $fatal have bad arguments
> Dmitry: Will send to SV-BC for review.
>
> 3113 Add port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences,
> properties and checkers
> Erik: Motivation should add justification of changing the syntax.
> Lawrence: will update the proposal. Dmitry will call for a vote.
>
> 2476 Need clarification about system functions $onehot, etc
> Erik: Will change language to specify what the function formal
> argument
> types are, not what actual types are required.
> Then, language casting rules will apply if user supplies wrong
> type
> for argument
>
> 3385 Possible ambiguity when deferred assertion action block
> calls
> nested function
> Erik: Only friendly amendments. Will make changes and upload.
>
>
> - Issue resolution/discussion
> 2328: Review and relax restrictions on data types in assertions
> Manisha: event.triggered() It's currently dis-allowed. Do we
> gain
> anything by allowing it?
> Does it even make sense to pass event.triggered() to $past()
> According to Dmitry's proposal, sequence.triggered() is sampled
> in
> postponed region. When does event.triggered() value return to
> zero.
> in the postponed region?
>
> Scott: So essentially, event.triggered() should be handled the
> same way as
> sequence.triggered()
>
> Scott: Is sampling well defined for events?
> Define it as the sampled value of the item the event is pointing
> to?
> Dmitry: Current proposal says events are not sampled.
> Scott: Will make changes. Dmitry will call to vote if available
> tomorrow.
> Otherwise, Manisha and Erik will review.
> Scott: Do we need to include special language on what happens when an
> assertion references an invalid array index?
> Or do we rely on the other language in the LRM?
> Scott: Will rely on other LRM language.
> Manisha: Also, c-handles cannot be used in sensitivity lists.
> Scott: Just define sampled value of c-handle to be the current value?
> Dmitry: Dis-allow c-handles in assertions.
>
> (Erik Left)
>
> 3295: need a way to control only asserts/covers/assume directives
> Manisha: Changed "list_of_modules" to "list_of_scopes"
> Ed: Is "scope" defined elsewhere? If so, remove definition.
>
>
> 2576: Vacuity Definition
> Ben: Have uploaded a modified proposal
>
> Tom: Move to accept proposal
> Scott: Second
> Vote results: 9y, 0n, 0a
>
> Meeting adjourned
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.