Re: [sv-ac] Minutes for SV-AC Meeting; 6/8/2010

2291 uploaded. Will need to vote on it at next meeting.

Ben

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Thomas J Thatcher <
thomas.thatcher@oracle.com> wrote:

> Date: 2010-06-08
> Time: 16:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)
> Duration: 1.5 hours
>
> Dial-in information:
> --------------------
> Meeting ID: 38198
>
> Phone Number(s):
> 1-888-813-5316 Toll Free within North America
>
>
> Agenda:
> -------
>
> - Reminder of IEEE patent policy.
> See: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
>
> - Minutes approval
>
> - Highest priority enhancements
> We need to identify the highest priority enhancements from our list to
> request permission from the WG to start working on these items. These items
> need not be necessarily the first one in the list.
>
> - Issue resolution/discussion
> 2804: Need to clarify rule (b) in 16.15.6 to allow inferred clock when
> expression appears in procedural assertion
> 2955: Checker example is wrong
> 3113: Add port_identifier to constant_primary BNF for sequences, properties
> and checkers
> 2732: Clarify timing diagram in Figure 16-4?Future value change
> 1933: 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
> 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
> 2825: 16.16 Disable iff: checkers not included in list of default
> extensions
> 2754: P1800-2009 : Can clock change in conditional branch of 'if' operator
> 2927: Precedence between sequence/property operator and normal expression
> operator
> 2452: No vacuity information about synchronous aborts
> 2557: Rules for passing automatic variables to sequence subroutines are not
> clear
> 2556: Explicit package scope indication is not allowed for checkers
> 2476: Need clarification about system functions $onehot, etc
> 1763: The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect
> sequence methods and events
> 2485: terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
> 1756: The LRM does not indicate how the control tasks $asserton/off/kill
> affect verification statements in initial blocks
> 2809: Checker instantiation in checkers' always procedure
> 2938: Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions &
> short-circuiting
> 2353: 'classes' missing from description
>
> - 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[xxxxxxx] Laurence Bisht (Intel)
> v[xxxxxxx] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)
> v[xx-xxxx] Ben Cohen
> v[xx-xx-x] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
> v[x-xxxxx] Dana Fisman (Synopsys)
> v[--xxxxx] John Havlicek (Freescale)
> v[xxxxxxx] Tapan Kapoor (Cadence)
> t[xxxxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Intel ż Chair)
> v[xxxxxx.] Scott Little (Freescale)
> v[xxxxxxx] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
> v[xxxxx..] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)
> v[-xx-xxx] Erik Seligman (Intel)
> v[x-xxxxx] Tom Thatcher (Sun Microsystems ż Co-Chair)
> |- attendance on 2010-06-08
> |--- voting eligibility on 2010-06-08
>
>
>
> Minutes:
> --------
>
> 1. Minutes from last meeting:
> Scott: move to approve minutes
> Second Dana.
> Vote results: 11 yes, 0 opposed, 0 abstain
>
> 2. High priority items: Working group may give us premission to
> work on a few high priority items while the PAR is being approved.
>
> Dmitry: Would like to work on complicated issues to get a head start on
> them.
> Scott: AMS: If we work on this, we should ask to work only on data type
> extension.
> Dmitry: Interested in checker usability:
> Output arguments (2093)
> Interface arguments (2751)
> Ben: In favor of interfaces. Okay with output arguments as long as they
> don't iterfere with DUT.
> Ed: What about using assumes to control inputs?
> Ben: Interfaces are things that most users would need.
> Dmitry: Suggests requestiong a generic "enhance checker arguments"
> to encompass multiple mantis items.
> Ben: Interfaces have outputs, so interface proposal would be dependent
> on checker output
>
> 3. Issue resolution:
>
> Dmitry: Would like to assign owners to Mantis items that don't have owners
>
> a. 2804
>
> Dmitry: Eric is not here
> Manisha: Item b says "only one event control", but item 2 says,
> "other than as an event control" This is contradictory
> Dmitry: Compare BNF of "event control" with BNF of "clocking event"
> "clocking_event" is more restrictive.
> Manisha: will change the proposal, substitute "clocking event" for
> "event control"
>
> b. 2955
>
> Tapan: Had updated the proposal
> Dmitry Long comment should be in text, not in example
> Ed: Compile time? or elaboration-time?
> Tapan: How do we define "compile-time"
> Ed: Should be elaboration time
> Dmitry: Agree
> Dmitry: Will vote next time.
> Dmitry: Also need to fix fonts in the proposal. Looks like Arial font used
> instead of New Times Roman
> Tapan: Phrase "compile-time" also used elsewhere. e.g. p. 869
> Dmitry: Still suggests "elaboration-time"
>
> c. 3113
>
> Lawrence: Have uploaded the proposal, but no comments on it.
> Simply added a footnote to the BNF.
> Ed: Need to make the change in multiple places in the document
> Tom: The proposal is made more compact by showing the change, and
> listing
> all sections where that change occurs.
> Ed: But all items of the change don't appear in all sections
> Lawrence: Will copy the change for each section.
> Ed: Is "rewriting algorithm" precise enough?
> Lawrence: Will make a separate comment for sequence & property
> Dmitry: What about Let.
> Lawrence: Will check on it.
> Dmitry: Footnote 24 is already in use.
> Add note to editor to use the next free footnote number.
> Dmitry: "local" should be in courier_new 9point.
>
> d. Back to 2804
> Manisha: Uploaded a corrected proposal
> Ed: move to accept this proposal
> Tapan second
>
> Vote results: 11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain
>
> e. 2291
>
> Scott: Deleted text should be red strike-out
> Also the word "specified" appears in blue, but it is not added
> Ben: Will fix it.
>
> f. Back to 2955
> Dmitry: Fonts still not right.
> Dmitry: Will call for an e-mail vote.
>
>
> Tom: Next week is Design Automation Conference
> Will not be here
> Dmitry OK ,we can skip next meeting
> Next meeting in two weeks.
>
> --
> 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.