Date: 2010-05-25
Time: 16:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)
Duration: 2 hours
Dial-in information:
--------------------
Toll number: +1 916-356-2663
Toll free number (US): 888-875-9370 (U.S. toll-free)
Bridge: 5 Passcode: 5047788
Agenda:
----------
- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.
See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
- Minutes approval
- Effort estimation for top priority issues.
- Issue resolution and discussion.
3020: Recursive property Restriction 4 is not consistent between
Clause 16.13.17 and Annex F.7
2955: Checker example is wrong
2804: Need to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock
when expression appears in procedural assertion
2732: Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4?Future value change
1933: 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
2387: Layout of 16.11 is inconsistent
2291: the description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
2330: Clarify that number_of_ticks argument to $past must be
compile-time constant
2362: 16.14 mention of assertion control system tasks is unconnected
- 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 2010-04-13:
v[xxxxx] Laurence Bisht (Intel)
v[xxxxx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)
v[-xxxx] Ben Cohen
v[-xx-x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
v[xxxxx] Dana Fisman (Synopsys)
v[xxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale)
v[xxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)
t[xxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel - Chair)
v[xxxx.] Scott Little (Freescale)
v[xxxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
v[xxx..] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)
v[x-xxx] Erik Seligman (Intel)
v[xxxxx] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems ¿ Co-Chair)
|- attendance on 2010-05-25
|--- voting eligibility on 2010-05-25
Minutes:
--------
- Reminder of IEEE patent policy.
See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
- Minutes approval
Eric: move to approve
Second: John
11 in favor, opposed 0, abstain 0,
- Effort estimation for top priority issues.
--------------------------------------------
Need to provide effort estimation: How much can we accomplish before
Oct 2011
Dmitry, John and Ed have submitted effort estimation.
1. AMS assertions
Tom: What's the difference between 2328 and 3058?
John: 2328 should be simple. It allows for comparisons of real-valued
variables which create a boolean result
3058 is more complicated. It could involve changes for continuous time,
additional operators, etc.
John: If we work on 3058 too soon, it may take us too long
We should delay work on 3058 until the AMS committee has had time to
do work.
Ed: Estimate 2 weeks for 2328
John: That leaves 3 1/2 months for 3058
2. Checker usability
Tom: Estimate 6 months for this group
Many of these items may involve other committees.
Ed: We can probably these items in two groups:
easier: continuous and blocking assign
harder: output arguments and forcing
Dmitry: But continuous & blockcing assign: may introduce races.
Dmitry: 4 months may be enough to do a representative
Scott: Their estimates assumed that not all mantis items would be resolved
but a subset
Dmitry: leave estimate at 4 months, but note that not all items will be
completed?
john Ok
In other committees: Dave Rich saying "we are not committing to
completing everything"
3. Assertion system function
Ed. Unpacked structures may be tricky
John Once these have been introduced, how can these be referenced.
If things have to be limited, thinks will be complicated.
Dmitry 1.5 monthts?
John Yes.
Ed. Proposal for unpacked data types may not be necessary: We can already
do this with proper type casting.
Dmirty Several problems: bit streaming
Dmitry Also, the LRM doesn't specify whether unpacked types are allowed
or not
Ed: Normally you would cast to bit vector
Dmitry This is not intuitive.
Ed Actually it may be more intuitive if the casting is explicit.
4. Inference
Dmitry estimated 2 weeks
5. Sampling
Dmitry 1 month
May involve other committees.
Ed If we remove the checker input sampling it might be easier
Dmitry This will still involve other committees
John Changing sampling of checker arguments will raise backward
compatibility issues.
May want to create an $unsampled() function instead
Dmitry We may not be able to use disable iff within checkers.
(can't get unsampled value for disable iff)
Tom Schedule at least 2 months
Dmitry OK
6. Local varialbes
Dmitry 1.5 months
7. Scoping
Dmitry 6 months
Tom 3030 estimate of 2 weeks optimistic.
Dmitry Handle only the most basic case
John Aren't checkers allowed in task alreay?
Dmitry No
John May be somthing in the LRM that forbids it explicity.
However, In most cases if the task was inlined, then the checker
instantiation would be allowed.
Ed What about recursive code?
John We fixed concurrent assertions in procedural code, so this should
be ok.
When execution reaches point where assertion is, the attempt gets put
in the assertion queue
Ed What about reporting?
John Reporting problem not different from that of immediate assertions.
Dmitry I agree that 2 weeks is too short
John Putting checker instantiations in functions may be more complex than
tasks. Infrastructure is there to support it for tasks not sure for
functions.
John Six months reasonable over all. Maybe not all items will get done.
Dmitry Leave at 6 months for entire group
8. Type system
Dmitry 2.5 montsh
John Items will generate contention with other committees
Tom 4 months is agressive, but reasonable.
9. Covergroups
Dmitry Estimate was 3 months. We can make it four.
Tom Agree on four
10. Formal semantic
Dmitry 2 weeks
John Abstract grammars for unclocked, clocked things.
Mantis item suggests re-writing the annex
Some issues with non-overlapping. Some inconsistencies.
We put 1 month. Assumes we don't re-write.
We just put in missing derived forms and fir non-overlapping case.
Dmitry 1 months
11. Vacuity
Dmitry 1 month
John We didn't thik there would be that much text
2 weeks.
12. Temporal logic
Dmitry 1 month
(no discussion)
Summary:
Dmitry: total time in our schedule would be 30 months.
Tom 17 months till Oct 2011
Dmitry: We also have to fix errata, proof-read, etc.
John: If issues have separate drivers, then we could work on multiple items
at once.
Dmitry: We don't have to commit to doing everything
Eric: Will AMS assertions be done by DC? Or do we still have to do it.
John If we wait, we won't have to invent much.
We let the AMS group address as much as they can. We just have to
make adaptation for synax, etc.
Dmitry: We 17 months to address all issues assuming we can work on 2
issues
at once.
We would like to ask work group to permit us to work on issues listed
Eric Schedule is approximate.
John: Not sure whether we need to make statemtn to work group. We may just
need a sentence to say we may not complete everything.
John: Will compose a statement to the working group.
(While waiting for John to compose the statement)
Dmitry: Bi-weekly meeting not sufficient: weekly?
Tom Is it necessary yet? Are we authorized to work on these major items,
or are we just working on erratta.
Dmitry ony errata
Ed limit to 1 1/2 hours?
Dmitry: Should be reasonable.
Dmitry: Next meeting next week.
Dmitry: John has created a statement to the working group and mailed it out
to the reflector.
John: (Reads the statement)
Eric: Do we need to vote on this?
John: If we approve the statement, Dmitry can present this as the opinion
of the committee.
John Move to approve
Eric Second
11 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstain. Motion passed.
- Issue resolution and discussion.
----------------------------------
2804: Need to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock
when expression appears in procedural assertion
Eric: Proposal was uploaded
Ed: What about $display
Eric: Maybe generalize "sampled value functions" to "any system funciton"
Ed Should be "any system task"
Dmitry: Why do we need all these execptions explicit
Eric: Yes it is messy,
Why not
Eric: Everyon e-mail him possible missing exceptions
Will re-visit this next week.
3020: Recursive property Restriction 4 is not consistent between
Clause 16.13.17 and Annex F.7
John: Simply changing F.7 to be consistent with 16.13.17
Adding 3rd condition
Manisha: Isn't first condition covering the last one?
John: No
First condition: e is a formal argument of p
third (new) condition: e is bound to a local variable
Ed: Third case is a pass by value, it's not a reference
John This was the missing capability needed for recursive properties.
Ed: Looks good
Ed Move to accept proposal
Tom Second
11 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstain Passed
2955: Checker example is wrong
Tapan: Changes were added as a note to the mantis item.
John: We will need a document that descibes these changes in a format that
the editor can used.
Tapan: Will add PDF of change
Dmitry: Other issues:
Generate item cannot be a formal argument. Could be a parameter, but
checkers don't have parameters.
May need new mantis item to say that generate item could be a formal
argument.
Manisha: There is a mantis for adding parameters for checkers. Would
that cover this case?
Dmitry Parameters to checkers not really needed
Ed What about backward compatibility? Existing checker libraries written
as modules currently have parameters.
Dmitry Will add mantis item for allowing generate items to be formal
arguments.
Discussion of Other issues without resolution yet
---------------------------------------------------
2732: Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4: Future value change
Ed Does the diagram show sampled values?
Tom No The diagram shows waveforms that the designer would see.
Ed No change necessary
Tom Agree: no change necessary
John Could explain more "The assertion fails because $changing_gclk(sig) is
1 at time 80, but $falling_gclk(clk) is 0."
Dmitry Who can write a proposal?
John Will write a proposal
Dmitry Next meeting in one week.
Will try to resolve several errata type mantis items
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue May 25 13:04:23 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 25 2010 - 13:04:32 PDT