Minutes of SV-AC Meeting
Date: 2011-27-06
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=4457962
Agenda:
-------
- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.
See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
- Minutes approval
- Email ballot results:
Issue 3564 failed: 7y/2n/0a.
- New issues
- Champions' feedback
- Issue resolution/discussion
3145: Need to clearly define "maximal property"
- 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[x-xxxxx-xxx--xxx---xxxx-xxx-xxx...........................] Ashok
Bhatt (Cadence)
n[------xx--xxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxx-x-xxxxx--xxx]
Laurence Bisht (Intel)
v[xx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard
Cerny (Synopsys)
v[xxxxxx-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)
v[xxx---------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[xxxxxxxx---x-xxx-xx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx] Tapan
Kapoor (Cadence)
v[xx-xxx---x-xx-xxxxx-xxxx-x-x..............................] Jacob
Katz (Intel)
t[xx-xxxxxxxxx--xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Dmitry
Korchemny (Intel ¿ Chair)
v[xx-xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxxx] Scott
Little (Freescale)
v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx] Manisha
Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
v[x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Anupam
Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)
v[xxxx-xxxxxxxxx--xxx-xxxx-xxx-xxx--x-xx-xxx-xx--xxxxxxx-xxx] Erik
Seligman (Intel)
v[xxx-xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-x-xxx-xxxx-xxxx--xxxxxx-xxxxxxx.] Samik
Sengupta (Synopsys)
v[xxxxxxxx-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 2011-09-27
|--- voting eligibility on 2011-09-27
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 of last meeting
Erik: Second
Vote Results: 12y, 0n, 0a
- Email ballot results:
Issue 3564 failed: 7y/2n/0a.
Erik: If variables in concurrent assertion don't wake up the always_comb,
then there could be false positives where assertion doesn't fire
because it is never evaluated.
Tom: But what about a temporal assertion like a ##1 b? Sould a change
in b wake up the always_comb
Tom: We have a consistent semantic now. It's just a little surprising
for inexperienced users.
Anupam: We should keep the current semantic.
Examples posted by Dmitry:
always_comb begin
bit dummy_en = '0;
a = ,,,;
if (a) begin // a non-sampled
bit dummy_eb = '1;
assert property (@(posedge clk) b); // b sampled
assert property (@(posdege clk) (non-sampled) dummy_eb |-> ....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this correct????
(Shouldn't it be "(non-sampled) a"?)
always @(posedge clk1 or posedge clk2) begin
a <= ,,,;
if (a) begin // a non-sampled
assert property (@(posedge clk2) b); // b sampled
In the first case, the assertion might be executed many fewer times
than expected, because a new evaluation would be scheduled only when
a variable changes that would trigger the always block.
In the second example, the assertion might be evaluated more times
than expected, because a new evaluation would be scheduled at both
clk1 and clk2 clocking events.
Dmitry: We should just not mention concurrent assertions in this proposal
We'll have to fix this in the next PAR.
Ben: Should add an assertion label to the immediate assertion.
Ed: What about variable a in assertion? Variable a is read by
the assertion, but it is also assigned.
Manisha: Sec 9.2.2.2.1 specifically excludes variables being assigned
within the block from contributing to the sensitivity list.
Ed: But a is also being read by the assertion. Would that also put
it in the sensitivity list?
Anupam: Will work on fixes. Vote on this later in the meeting.
- New issues
- Champions' feedback
- Issue resolution/discussion
3145: Need to clearly define "maximal property"
Scott: It would be better to define the term before the use.
Ed: If you tried to do that, it would require more changes
As it is, it is a very local change.
Scott: That should be fine.
Manisha: Could it be done as a footnote?
Scott: Or could you add definition after the first use.
Ed: With a footnote, you can refer to it from multiple places.
Scott: Does it belong in the glossary?
Erik: Will try to quickly modify proposal so that it is a footnote.
Back to 3564: Anupam has made changes
Erik: Move to approve proposal for 3564
Ed: Second
Vote Results: 12y, 0n, 0a
Back to 3145: Erik has made changes
Erik: Move to approve proposal for 3145
Tom: Second
vote results: 12y, 0n, 0a
Dmitry: This is our final proposal for this PAR. Will schedule meeting
when we have Champions feedback.
Ed: Will still have the conference call scheduled.
Dmitry: Will send out meeting notice when we need to schedule a meeting.
Anupam: Mantis 2412. Mantis item was approved by Champions, but Scott had
a correction. Suggested to fix it in editing state.
Dmitry: No action required now.
- Opens
Meeting adjourned.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Sep 27 10:59:01 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 27 2011 - 10:59:07 PDT