Minutes of IEEE P1800 SV-AC meeting #2009-04 Date: 2009-04-27 Time: 16:00 UTC (09:00 PDT) Dialin information: ------------------- Toll number: +1 916-356-2663 Toll free number (US): 888-875-9370 (U.S. toll-free), Bridge: 2 Passcode: 6326220 Attendance Record: ------------------ Legend: x = attended - = missed r = represented . = not yet a member v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 2/3) n = not a valid voter t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie Attendance re-initialized on 2009-04-13: vv[-xxx] Doron Bustan (Intel) vv[xxxx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys) vv[xx-x] Ben Cohen nn[x--x] John Havlicek (Freescale) vv[x-xx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence) tt[xxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Chair) vv[x-xx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics) vn[x-x.] Lisa Piper vv[xxxx] Erik Seligman (Intel) vv[xxxx] Bassam Tabbara (Synopsys) vv[xx-x] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems - Co-Chair) |-------------- attendance on 2009-04-27 |---------------- voting eligibility on 2009-04-27 |----------------- new voting eligibility Agenda: ------- - Reminder of IEEE patent policy. See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt - Approve meeting minutes from 2009-04-20. Erik moves. Tom seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. - Provide feedback on ballot issues 81 and 101 (Mantis items 2717 and 2562) moved from SV-EC to SV-AC. Mantis 2717. John: LRM should not have limitations regarding the contents of assertion action blocks. Tom makes a motion: No changes are required. Send the following feedback to P1800 WG: "SV-AC believes that no change in the LRM is required. The user may explicitly desire such usage. If appropriate, this check should be performed by linting tools." Erik seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. Mantis 2562. Dmitry: This issue is important since there is an inconsistency between the LRM text and BNF. This Mantis contains a proposal. Tom, Erik, Tapan: The proposal looks reasonable. John: Has the VPI issue been handled? Dmitry: VPI should be already correct according to 37.17. In any case we can send this issue to SV-CC for review. If a problem is found there we will open a new Mantis item related to VPI. Dmitry will call to vote and will send a review request to SV-CC. - Track progress/review resolution of the following Mantis items: 2647: Clarification about clock glitches in concurrent assertions Dmitry: Should it be "the user *should* ensure" or "*shall* ensure"? Ben, Erik, John: "should" is more appropriate. Tom moves to approve the proposal. Erik seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. 2656: Clarify difference of $global_clock handling in simulation and formal verification Erik: Change "This assertion is equivalent" to "This assertion is logically equivalent". Dmitry: No need to stress that $global_clock is considered a primary clock for formal verification, and not for simulation. Tom: This is not important for simulation. Erik: primary clock is not defined for simulation. Erik moves to approve this proposal conditionally on replacing "This assertion is equivalent" "This assertion is logically equivalent". Tom seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. 2658: Default values for untyped formals. Erik: There should not be references to Annex F in the main text of the LRM. Dmitry: There already are such references, for example, on Page 318. Erik agrees. Dmitry: At the bottom of Page 318 it is written "An actual argument shall be enclosed in parentheses and shall be cast to its self-determined type..." My understanding was that self-determined type should have been used in both cases. John: The description looks correct to me. Dmitry: In any case we are not allowed to resolve it now. Manisha: Why is typed argument type resolution is mentioned in your proposal if the issue relates to untyped arguments only? Dmitry: The text will be incomplete if only untyped arguments are mentioned in this place. John moves to approve this proposal. Erik seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. 2650: Ambiguity in a sequence repetition [*0] definition 2652: Future value functions need clarification Erik will notify when the proposals are ready and Dmitry will call to email vote (no later than Thursday). 2654: Error in an example of throughout operator Tom: I prefer to change the timing diagrams in Fig. 16-12, 16-13, though some people pointed to the inconsistency with other pictures where sampled values were shown. Dmitry: There are both kinds of timing diagrams in the LRM. John: I am in favor of Tom's suggestion. Tom moves to approve the proposal. John seconds. Motion passed 7y/0a/0n. Lisa: Need to open a Mantis item to make all waveforms consistent. Tom: Will fill it in. - 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 Mon Apr 27 13:34:46 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 13:35:44 PDT