SV-XC Committee meeting Monday June 25, 2012 Note: the minutes might not be in the order in which the meeting actually took place. I moved some of my notes around so as to consolidate the complete discussion for each item. Attendees 000 665 212 511 1. AAA Dave Rich y Mentor 2. AAA Neil Korpusik y Oracle 3. AAA Dmitry Korchemny y Intel 4. AAA Shalom Bresticker y Intel 5. AAA Matt Maidment y Intel 6. --A Stu Sutherland Editor-IEEE 7. AAA Francoise Martinolle y Cadence 8. AAA Surrendra Dudani y Synopsys 9. --A Dana Fisman Synopsys 10. --A Ghassan Khoory Synopsys 11. --A Yatin Trivedi Synopsys 12. AAA Brad Pierce y Synopsys 13. --A Arturo Salz Synopsys 14. -AA Ed Cerny y Synopsys 15. -A- Brandon Tipp Intel 16. AA- Steven Sharp y Cadence 17. AA- Mark Hartoog y Synopsys 18. AA- Jim Vellenga y Cadence 19. -A- Chuck Berking Cadence 20. -A- Jonathan Bromley Accellera 21. A-- Kaiming Ho Fraunhofer 22. A-- Anupam Prabhakar Mentor We have had three meetings, the 2-out-of-3 rule now applies. 12 people will have voting rights at the next meeting. 1. Review IEEE patent policy ------------------------------------------------------ http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt The chair brought everyone's attention to the patent policy. 2. Approve minutes of June 11th meeting http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-xc/hm/0203.html Shalom, Matt - Approve the minutes. Unanimously approved 3. Review the Agenda and ask if there is any other business. The most recent email vote was added to the agenda. 4. Editor update, if any. Are they any items that the editor is not able to handle directly with committee approval? No updates (Stu wasn't online today). 5. Review of the email vote which ended on June 25, 2012 (8am PDT) There was an objection to the email vote having ended in less than a one week period of time. Dave suggested that we invalidate the email vote and go through each issue in the conference call. Steven Sharp, Jim Vellenga - move to invalidate the results of the email vote which just completed. Opposed: Neil Approved with one no vote (9 yes, 1 no) Neil Korpusik Oracle n Dmitry Korchemny Intel y Shalom Bresticker Intel y Matt Maidment Intel y Francoise Martinolle Cadence y Surrendra Dudani Synopsys y Brad Pierce Synopsys y Steven Sharp Cadence y Mark Hartoog Synopsys y Jim Vellenga Cadence y Items from the June 25th email vote: ----------------------------------- (1) mantis 4145 Shalom - originally voted no (was changed to yes) - the proposal was updated before the email vote ended. - Brad updated the proposal based on feedback from Shalom. Steven - procedurally this is an issue. The proposal may have changed before some people voted. People were given time in the meeting to review the latest proposal. Brad, Shalom - approve the proposal for mantis 4145. Unanimously approved (2) mantis 4129 Brad - there isn't an example of using integer expressions. is '$' allowed? if so, what does it mean? Neil - doesn't like the idea of always requiring parens, as is required by the proposal. Brad - could possibly require a primary here. Steven - parens would only be required when operators are used. Brad - does that avoid the ambiguity? Steven - assumes it would. Dave - sounds like this one will require another meeting. Brad - there is still the issue of integer expressions. There is no example nor a description of this. $ is the biggest question. it it allowed, if so, what does it mean. Shalom - it isn't clear what integer_expression means, what are the legal values? Shalom - requested Brad to work it out with Scott Little. Francoise - mantis 4199 is this very issue. (3) mantis 4127 Brad - there was quite a bit of discussion still going on that was the reason for his no vote. shalom - ok with either passing as is or updating the wording. Shalom, Matt - approve the proposal for mantis 4127. Unanimously approved (4) mantis 4126 Steven - This proposal represents an enhancement. He doesn't want to put in enhancements at this point. Matt - is it a question of scope of work? Steven - not saying it is a big deal. Shalom - the reason we wanted it is that at least 2 tools currently allow it. We have some code that uses this capability. Shalom, Brad - approve the proposal for mantis 4126. Oppose: Steven - see Steven's discussion points. Abstain: Francoise Passed with 1 no and 1 abstain. (5) mantis 3982 Jim - it failed in the first vote. There were no responses to issues he raised at that time. Shalom - other parts of that clause also refer to a hier expression. Jim - where it says hierarchical expression it doesn't really mean hierarchical expression? Shalom - agrees the wording is not as clear as it should be. would rather not be fussing with it much at this point. Shalom, Neil - approve the proposal for mantis 3982. Abstains: Jim, Steven Passed with 2 abstains. (6) mantis 3940 Francoise - Not clear about the the language that refers to "flow". Means it is visible? Anupam - Yes, it is visible. Francoise - thinks the wording should be changed. Anupam - there is an appendix about clock flow. Shalom - the assertion chapter uses a lot of terminology not used in other parts of the LRM. Neil - 16.13.3 is the actual sub-clause being modified. Shalom - the reference to mantis 2412 should also be removed. Brad - was suggesting a rewording with regards to "a name property or sequence". He retracted it, after it was pointed out that what is there now is appropriate. Anupam - an extra 'a' in the last update. Anupam - updated the proposal during the meeting and it was then voted. Shalom, Dmitry - approve the proposal for mantis 3940. Abstain - Steven Passed with 1 abstain. (7) mantis 3879 Francoise, Shalom - approve the proposal for mantis 3879. Unanimously approved Brad - true and false aren't defined? Steven - there are different meanings in different locations of the LRM. AI/Dave - delete the old proposals. (8) mantis 3525 Shalom - Objects to the proposal in the current form. There are questions of backward compatibility. Dmitry - Should it be discussed in the svac? Dave - email is ok, a meeting is also possible. (9) mantis 2840 Brad, Shalom - approve the proposal for mantis 2840. Unanimously approved 6. Other mantis items ready for discussion mantis 4131 Brad - no discussion is required? Shalom - this is for a function prototype, not a function call. Steven - the prototype is what tells you if there are defaults . Brad - if no parens, you have nothing. There is no discussion as to what it means. Steven - is there text that says empty parens means no ports? Brad - looks similar to modports without xxx??? It appears to be a parallel situation, with different meanings. Shalom - the out of block declaration will match the prototype Steven - the lack of parens is intended to be the same as empty parens. Shalom - the text says the full argument list is required. There shouldn't be any ambiguity. Brad - people could be confused into thinking this is just the name of the function. Steven - just the bnf for class functions. Brad - would like to see text that mentions that no parens is the same as empty parens. Shalom - the existing text should be enough. Anyone reading the text should come to the right conclusion. see sub-clause 25.7 Brad - only the prototype is changed via 4131. the word task or function will always be there. Jim, Shalom - approve the proposal for mantis 4131. Unanimously approved mantis 3394 Dave - there was some debate as to whether this was an assignment-like context. Brad - Doesn't think the existing example is helpful. not legal to treat dynamic arrays this way? Neil - there was text in the LRM that seemed to contradict some of the concerns raised in the last meeting. Francoise - mantis 2390 is related to this discussion Dave - we still need to decide if the example needs to be fixed. - It sounds like the whole line needs to be deleted. Steven - thinks 'new' needs to be removed. Dave - mantis 2390 captures the issue. Steven, Matt - approve the proposal for mantis 3394. oppose: Neil - we should first get input from the svec Approved with 1 opposed. mantis 4130 Francoise - chuck is working on a proposal mantis 4141 AI/Francoise - write a proposal mantis 3659 Francoise - a proposal is in the works for this one. mantis 4128 mantis 4076 mantis 2867 AI/Shalom - is willing to work on proposals for these 3. 2559 AI/Dave - will write a proposal for this one. 7. Another email vote is coming Dave - Another email vote will start up. It wil be due 1 hour before the start of our July 9th meeting. 8. Next Meeting July 9th, 9am-11am (PDT)