-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Champions meeting minutes of November 8, 2007 8am - 10am PST Attendees: ---------- * Stu * Surrendra * Brad * Francoise * Shalom * John * Dave * Neil 1. List of mantis items that failed a previous Champion's email vote: 1383 SV-AC Property coverage definition John - The last time this Mantis item was reviewed by the Champions it hadn't yet been voted by the svac to be resolved as "won't fix" Stu - The current resolution is "won't fix" but it looks like it is actually a duplicate of 805 (Re: bug notes) John - It touches a bunch of stuff, including 1768 - A resolution of duplicate is more accurate. Move: Stu - approve moving the resolution for 1383 to duplicate Second: Brad passed unanimously 1751 SV-CC Clarify vpiParent for part selects Shalom - accepts Jim's feedback on the issue he raised in the bug note. Move: Francoise - approve the proposal for 1751 Second: Shalom passed unanimously 1745 SV-BC "outside of" and "inside of" are bad style Neil - Dave voted no in the email vote, didn't object to the proposal but thought that the change didn't justify the amount of time. Move: Brad - approve the proposal for mantis 1745 Second: Stu passed unanimously (Dave was not online at the time) 1462 SV-BC 19.5, A.1.2: timeunits_declaration formatting confusing AI/Shalom - remove the proposals , move to duplicate state Move: Shalom - approve the resolution of "duplicate" for 1462 Second: Stu passed unanimously 1340 SV-BC inconsistency between module ports and task arguments Shalom - did some research on John's comments. - there are several places in the LRM that could be affected: modules, interfaces, programs - tasks and functions are a bit different (don't have wires) - the rules in the LRM may not be defined well enough today - it concerns him - it doesn't seem to invalidate this proposal though - the proposal doesn't make the situation any worse - John's comments are valid John - was unable to assign an unambiguous value to the language in this proposal, but is an existing issue. - the existing rules are not clear - there will also be an issues in the svac for sequences for the same problem - in John's example in the bug note - what is b? FM - the full definition is either all there or not at all, b is a signed logic in this example Shalom - the LRM is not clear on this point Stu - Doesn't want to create a new mantis item for this issue wants the global fix to be made instead. Brad - a new mantis item most likely won't get fixed due to the workload If this one is rejected it will raise the urgency of the issue. - should it be done in this version of the LRM? Shalom - thinks it should be fixed. Stu - thinks the svbc will address the issue if the champions reject it 1. already on their plate 2. svac needs input also on the same issue John - the svac will be working on 1667 with this issue in it Brad - send it back if champions think it should be fixed Surrendra - the proposal changes the statement, a little bit (inaccurate) Shalom - the svbc thought the proposal was more accurate (int i, j) - j is an int, it inherits, existing text Move: Stu - send 1340 back to the svbc - with this issue flagged. The svbc needs to update the LRM with more global rules for the issue raised in item 1. of John's feedback as a Champion, which is shown in the bug note that Neil added on Oct 3rd. This particular proposal doesn't add anything that is wrong but it has made it clear that an issue exists. Other constructs with port lists and argument list have issues with the "inheritance of argument lists". Second: John passed unanimously 2. List of mantis items not yet reviewed by the Champions: 2090 SV-AC Concurrent assertion instantiation - inconsistent wording John - the Word doc is for sharing the source so others can make minor changes. The pdf file contains the official proposal. Move: Brad - approve the proposal for mantis 2090 Second: Shalom passed unanimously 1758 SV-AC Boolean implication -> and equivalence <-> Francoise - this introduces a couple of new operators, the vpi will need to be updated as well - we could create a new mantis item for that John - Bassam is on both committees and he has been defining the VPI changes for several of the svac mantis proposals. Dave - it needs to go to the svbc, the proposal has nothing to do with assertions John - the changes are being added at the expression level not the assertion level - the svbc needs to review it Shalom - svac should send the svbc some reasons for adding this Dave - has no problem with the operators themselves, but we need to make sure that they are added properly Brad - had a question on the parenthesizing shorthand, in particular with the associativity rules Shalom - not the same associativity as in operators it is built from. Move: Dave - send mantis item 1758 to the svbc for approval Second: Brad passed unanimously AI/John - send input to the svbc on the reasons behind adding these new operators AI/Neil - Make sure Mantis 1758 is sent to the svcc as well. Needs to be approved by the svbc and a new mantis needs to be opened for the svcc if the svbc approves 1758, two new boolean operator are being added. 1728 SV-AC Introduce "let"statement Shalom - has a minor issue with the examples: the equivalent code seems to need an extra set of parenthesis in several places (see Shalom's bug note) John - thinks Shalom is correct - the svac would need to re-approve it ok for champions to send it back to the svac Francoise - did svcc review the vpi changes? - page 11, and 36.76, Brad - (bit clock) - in part e - bits can't be inout - logic clock would be ok, or say input <----- friendly amendment Shalom - original has c cat and d dog as logic, rewritten one has bit - need to check other examples Move: Francoise - send mantis item 1728 back to svac for changes. Shalom's changes to the examples need to be made. Brad's friendly amendment needs to be addressed. Some of the examples seem to have changes in unexpected places. Needs to be reviewed by the svcc Second: John passed unanimously 1668 SV-AC Local variable initializers. John - this proposal was reviewed in detail by the svac Stu - Editor concern - in F.1 - note to editor in green Which section is does this refer to? John - new sub-clause in this file is the one they are referring to. - change note to point to the new clause. Stu - multiple pdfs - he only looks at latest file - there needs to be a note in the pdf that there are multiple parts to the changes - can name the two parts as part 1, 2 John - he can merge the two proposals into one pdf Stu - the fonts used in here can also be problematic (with IEEE also) - graphics text box for special symbols Neil - at this point we moved to 1549... there is a dependency in annex F on 1549 <stopped here> - ok, we are done with 1549 (sent it back) <can't finish up with 1668 since 1549 was sent back> AI/John - make those changes to the notes to the editor 1641 SV-AC need a way to specify severity for printing general error messages <we didn't discuss this, we jumped around a bit and then ran out of time> 1549 SV-AC add missing formal argument types John - the first 2 files in Mantis are commentary - 2 docs contain the proposal - pdf for first part, pdf and word for second part Stu - heavy use of the word "may" (seems like a lot should be "can") John - there are some issues with parentheses being allowed or not ($,etc) Brad - why need parens around a primary? - the text is unusual in that it says only added when needed. - could there be issues later because missing parens? sometimes can't have parens since illegal Shalom - if the actual argument is a+b, when the formal argument is c - c*d is in the code a+b*d are the substituted values but really want (a+b)*d - acts like text substitution in a macro John - thinks the cases where parens are not legal don't cause problems concern about later can't be a compound expression Brad - should the special cases be enumerated? it is strangely written today John - there might be other cases that aren't known - could declare other cases to be illegal Brad - ok with creating a new mantis to address this parens issue Stu - did the svac take a serious look at the use of the word 'may' (John used it on purpose) deliberate choices were used to select which word used? The answer was yes, they were. John - "is permitted to" - may - legality of language usage "is able to" - can - potentially useful ways of employing the language is ok to review the switch with Stu Shalom - a tool "may" issue a warning, an overflow "can" occur (examples) - didn't see a problem in the usages of may flagged by Stu Stu - footnotes are informative, those on page 5 appear to be normative - IEEE rule Shalom - footnotes to tables are normative! (yes, the rules are confusing) - see mantis 1982 about making $ a primary (FYI) AI/John - move footnotes into the body of the text AI/John - create a new mantis item on $, and parens issue AI/Brad - issue with annex A.10 - footnotes always informative? AI/John - Make it obvious that there are 2 pdfs involved in the proposal AI/John - talk to Stu about the font issues to make editor's life easier svcc delivers some documents as frame source files Move: John - send mantis item 1549 back to the svac for changes Second: Brad passed unanimously 1942 SV-CC Deprecated vpiArray property still appears in several places where vpiArrayMember should replace it. 1367 SV-CC Section 27.11 Ports - the port and port bit objects should be bold Move: Francoise - approve the proposals for Mantis 1942 and 1367 Second: Shalom passed unanimously 1570 SV-CC Clarify legality of 'integer' and 'time' as DPI parameter types Shalom - there is a section number problem <we were running out of time and did not have time to do more with this> At least one Champion had an issue with each of the following 3 mantis items. We pulled this set out of the list of svbc items that we then passed as a group. We did this since we were almost out of time and wanted to pass as many items as possible before ending the conference call. 1278 SV-BC "initial" and "always" "constructs" 1939 SV-BC Hexadecimal escapes in strings (Table 5-1) 2056 SV-BC 12.7.1: Description of for-loop step assignment is not precise The following set of Mantis items were approved as a group. 1750 SV-BC %p printing should also work with non-aggregates (based on mantis 331) 2092 SV-BC Clarify that wires may be fixed-sized unpacked arrays 2029 SV-BC BNF does not allow 'string' as casting_type 2024 SV-BC Table 25-18 column headings 2006 SV-BC Clarify empty argument characteristics 1993 SV-BC 29.4.4.4: bad specify block ifnone example 1989 SV-BC Consistant use of string terminology 1988 SV-BC 13.4.2: contradiction 1949 SV-BC 19.6.1 $typename example error? 1940 SV-BC 6.8: Inaccurate text 1937 SV-BC Title of 22.2.2.3 misleading 1846 SV-BC D3 21.13: add 1800-2008 to `begin_keywords 1792 SV-BC Aggregate array not defined 1767 SV-BC Missing 's' in BNF example of 1.4 1645 SV-BC behavior of keywords directives at end of compilation unit 1610 SV-BC Scoping of unnamed sequential blocks 1588 SV-BC Add predefined macros for file and line number 1554 SV-BC Array query functions as constant primaries (22.6) 1489 SV-BC 19.4: "top-level instance" vs. "top-level module" 1487 SV-BC wild/wildcard inconsistency 1473 SV-BC Is 4.2step legal? 1468 SV-BC always_latch has same restrictions as always_comb (11.3) 1464 SV-BC 19.7 (22.5 in D4): misleading (and illegal) example 1417 SV-BC 1.2 mentions queues twice 1354 SV-BC endxxx : identifier description missing from text 1348 SV-BC 10.8,9 (9.3.4-5 in D3a) don't say that statement labels create named blocks 1294 SV-BC 10.4: conditional_statement syntax (BNF) 1265 SV-BC 8.13.1: unclear sentence - what is "more arrays" ? 1228 SV-BC 8.11 does not define expansion of longest static prefix 1035 SV-BC Syntax 8-1 and Table 8-1 misclassifications 933 SV-BC Width casting 909 SV-BC All footnotes in Syntax boxes should be hyperlinks 907 SV-BC Default parameter assignment should be optional 699 SV-BC Overloading -- based on equivalence or matching? 1710 V-1364 15.3.5: $period error 1450 V-1364 3.8: attribute syntax clarification 1425 V-1364 Type/size propagation does not stop at parens (5.5.2, V-2005) 1302 V-1364 Selects use self-determined evaluation 1175 V-1364 Add field widths to print formats 1134 V-1364 Add localparam to ANSI-type param list Move: Brad - approve the proposals and resolutions for Mantis items 1750 through 1134 in the above list Second: Shalom Abstain: Stu - didn't get through all of them for the Editor review passed with one abstain 3. Next Meeting: ------------ Nov 28 - 8-10 PSTReceived on Tue Nov 13 17:37:53 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 13 2007 - 17:37:55 PST