[sv-ac] ballot result on 2005

Hi Folks:

Our ballot on 2005 passed with friendly amendments.

See the results below.

I didn't have this item marked on my calendar, so I
neglected to include it in the reminder notice.

J.H.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballot on Mantis 2005

- Called on 2008-01-16, final ballots due by 2008-01-21 T 23:59-08:00.

yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan (Intel)
yv[xxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)     
 n[----------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
 v[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais (Freescale)
 t[xxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale - Chair)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Co-Chair)
 v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
 n[------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor Graphics)
 n[---------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson (Jasper)
 n[---------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller (Freescale)
yv[xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper (Cadence)
yv[xxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman (Intel)
 n[-------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor Graphics)
yv[xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys)
 v[xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems)
   |------------------------------------------------- attendance on 2008-01-15
 |--------------------------------------------------- voting eligibility for this ballot
|---------------------------------------------------- email ballots received

        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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly Amendments

[BT]

 Annex N, ADD (after #define vpiImmediateAssert) <<<<< change to (in
"generic object properties" section of sv_vpi_user.h)
#define vpiIsDeferred editor to insert number

[DK]

* Clause 16.3 should state that there are two types of immediate
assertions - simple immediate and deferred.
* Syntax 16-1 needs to be modified in order to reference
simple_immediate_assertion_statement.
* Page 6. "sub block" should be written as one word.
* Page 7. I would not use the name "next_state" in always_comb
procedure.
* Page 8. "The counter for number of times evaluated, however, shall
include all executions of the cover statement." Why not only matured
attempts are counted?
* Page 8, subclause 3.8.5.3 - need to provide examples of such VPI
functions.

[LP]

"The counter for number of times evaluated, however, shall include all
executions of the cover statement."   Like Dmitry, I don't understand
why this includes all, versus only those matured. I think we need to
define "executions of" if this remains, because I thought it was only
executed when mature.=20

"- Syntax: Deferred assertions use #0 after the assert."   I would
suggest changing the "assert" to the "verification directive" to make it
applicable to assume and cover as well, and independent of 1729.
Applies in two places.

"In the case of a deferred assertion (see 16.4 editor correct
reference), currently queued reports are not flushed, though further
checking is prevented until the $asserton."  I would think it would
continue checking for that time step, report the result in the Reactive
region, and then stop. This sounds like it could report interim results
after $asserton resumes checking. The wording in the VPI section was
more clear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments

[DW]

I have a very minor suggestion for wording upgrade, in the new 16.4:

WAS:
However, in order to facilitate glitch avoidance, the reporting or action
blocks are scheduled at a later point in the simulator’s operation, later in the time step.

BETTER:
However, in order to facilitate glitch avoidance, the reporting or action
blocks are scheduled at a later point in the current time step.

Feel free to take it or leave it.

  ***

On another 2005 topic, note that the criteria for flush points includes
event controls and wait statements.  You might want to add an example
of the form

always begin
    ...
    <do something to cause a pending deferred assertion report>
    ...
    wait (sig1);  // Clears deferred assertion report queue
    ...
    wait (sig2);  // Clears deferred assertion report queue (again)
    ...
end

That would clarify that the use of wait() or event-control in a
process body will clear pending deferred assertion reports that
were created earlier in the process' execution.

I'm not exactly clear on the usefulness of this construction,
but it is prescribed by the proposal, and an example would help
make it clear.  Maybe you can think of some more useful example.
I think the real intention for using @ event control to create a
flush point was to make sure top-blocking always blocks result
in a flush each time they are executed.  There are some "implicit
fsm" styles out there that use a number of embedded wait or event
control statements to sequence through the various FSM states.

   ***

Also, in 16.4.4, I see this sentence:

   Disabling a non-outermost scope or a task of a procedure does not cause flushing of any pending reports.

What does "task of a procedure" mean?
A structured procedure is an always block, initial block, or other "process-like" thing.
Those can't contain tasks.  I think this sentence needs to be reworded for clarity.


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