**** Note: the USA is now observing Daylight Savings Time **** This effectively means that we are all getting up 1 hour earlier this week, as compared to last week. If your country hasn't made a similar transition, this meeting will appear to you to be occurring one hour earlier than normal. Our next conference call is scheduled for March 13th, 8-10am PDT Thursday March 13th, 2008 8-10am PDT Toll Free Dial In Number: (866)839-8145 Int'l Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (865)524-6352 ACCESS CODE: 9301228 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. List of Mantis items that are ready for review: ---------------------------------------------- 1. 2219 SV-BC not clear whether continuous assignment of event is allowed - fixed - On February 18, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved this proposal via e-mail ballot. 2. 2173 SV-AC Add case construct for properties. - fixed - 2008-02-26: Voice vote to approve proposal and friendly amendments, 7y/1n/0a. MK voted no: The reason is that I do not think it adds any critical functionality. The friendly amendments were implemented in 2173_prop_case_080226_yf.pdf. 3. 2106 SV-BC Clarifications needed for declaration before use of objects and type - fixed - Champions feedback for this Mantis item was placed into Mantis item 2304. This was agreed to in the Champions conference call of February 25, 2008. The Champions however neglected to vote on the proposal for 2106. Mantis item 2106 will have to go back to the Champions for a vote. 4. 2100 SV-AC Add synchronous resets syntax as oppose to the asynchronous nature of accept_on/reject_on - fixed - 2008-02-21: Voice vote to approve, 7y/0n/0a. 5. 2097 SV-BC release/deassign with variables driven by continuous assignments - fixed - The proposal was sent back to the SV-BC by the Champions in the January 17th, 2008 conference call. The latest Email thread concerning Mantis item 2235 needs to be addressed. - On February 18, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal 6. 2069 SV-AC Formal semantics for coverage is missing - fixed - 2008-02-13: Passed by e-mail ballot, 6y/0n/3a. 7. 2043 SV-BC $cast should appear in 19.5 Conversion functions - no change required - On February 18, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved 8. 2005 SV-AC Solution for glitch problem in immediate assertions - fixed - This Mantis item was in the feedback state during the review period for the Champions Feb 25, 2008 conference call. It will need to be reviewed for the next Champions meeting. - There is minor feedback from the cc 9. 1982 SV-AC 16.7: Description of actual arguments is unclear and maybe also inconsistent with other description of $ - duplicate - 2008-02-19 6y/0n/0a. 10. 1932 SV-AC Introduce LTL and other temporal operators - fixed - Failed Champions email vote of Feb 23, 2008. - It appears that the changes have been made and it is ready for another review by the champions. - 2008-02-26: Voice vote to approve LTL.1932.080224.pdf and LTL_Formal.080225.pdf, 9y/0n/0a. 11. 1901 SV-AC Cycle delay for ## concatenation allows identifier to specify the delay w/o retsricting to constant epxr - fixed - 2008-02-28: Voice vote 7y/0n/0a 12. 1852 SV-AC Ballot Feedback Issue STU2: Declarations on Assertions - duplicate - 2008-02-19: This issue has been addressed in 1549. Voice vote to approve state change to "resolved,duplicate": 6y/0n/0a. 13. 1849 SV-AC Update VPI object diagrams for immediate assume, cover - duplicate 14. 1837 SV-CC Wrong outline for net in VPI generate diagram - fixed - was sent back to svcc from champions Oct 25 - was updated and approved by svcc On 01/30/2008 the SV-CC PASSED an amended proposal to solve the issues found by the Champions committee. (unanimous) 15. 1833 SV-AC JEITA: 16.3 Precise definition of immediate assertion - duplicate - voice vote 7y/0n/0a 16. 1830 SV-AC JEITA: A.2.10 There are no Sequence methods(ended, triggered, matched) in the BNF - fixed - 2008-02-19: The friendly amendments were approved by voice vote, 6y/0n/0a. 17. 1828 SV-BC JEITA: 9.2.2.3, 9.2.2.4 should/can and mandatory statements - fixed - On February 18, 2008 the SV-BC approved the attached proposal. The approval was not unanimous: For: Gord, Shalom, Cliff, Karen, Don Heath Stu, Tom Opposed: Brad (If check is recommended, the check should be well-defined) Mark (If check is recommended, the check should be well-defined) Steven (Small change, unnecessary and shares opinion of Mark/Brad) Abstain: Alex (Likes current text but does not feel strongly either way) 18. 1806 SV-AC Introduce "restrict property" verification statement - fixed - 2008-02-26: Voice vote to approve friendly amendments, 9y/0n/0a. 19. 1786 SV-AC Definition of "if else" in Annex F seems broken - duplicate - 2008-02-19: This issue was fixed in the proposal for 1932. Voice vote to approve state change to "resolved,duplicate": 6y/0n/0a. 20. 1698 SV-AC The description of sampled value functions is insufficient - fixed - 2008-08-26: Voice vote to approve friendly amendment from DK, 9y/0n/0a. 21. 1687 SV-AC Wrong equivalence for $isunknown - fixed - 2008-02-19: Voice vote to approve, 6y/0n/0a. 22. 1686 SV-AC assertion evaluation does not wait on subroutines - fixed - 2008-02-14: Passed by e-mail ballot, 8y/0n/1a. 23. 1648 SV-AC Default reset for assertions - fixed - was sent back to the svac by the champions Jan 17 - has been updated and re-approved 2008-02-05: voice vote to approve the proposal dated 2008-01-31. 8y/0n/0a 24. 1601 SV-AC new keyword for untyped formal arguments - fixed - Was sent to ec for review by the champions The ec decided to take no action at this time. 25. 1599 SV-AC The assertion API and VPI sections need changes as per mantis #805 - fixed - made changes for the cc - approved by the cc 26. 1564 SV-BC 4.16, glossary: inconsistent definitions of bit-stream type - duplicate - On February 18, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved 27. 1340 SV-BC inconsistency between module ports and task arguments - fixed - was sent back to bc from champions - svbc has reapproved the proposal 28. 1230 SV-CC How to represent packed arrays of complex types in VPI - fixed - The proposal PASSED the SV-CC as amended on 02/27/2008 (unanimous). 29. 0588 SV-CC 31.9 uses the term "user", and has grammatically incorrect sentences - duplicate - The SV-CC voted to declare this a duplicate of Item 572 on 02/13/2008 (unanimous). 30. 0587 SV-CC 31.8.7 Please replace the term "user" with a more accurate term - Duplicate - The SV-CC voted to declare this a duplicate of Item 572 on 02/13/2008 (unanimous). 31. 1900 SV-AC Add new 'checker' construct to SVA 32. 2089 SV-AC Allow checker construct (0001900) to include final blocks with immediate assertions - fixed - Made changes requested by the svec - 2008-02-27: e-mail vote passed, 6y/0n/3a - svec requested that this be reviewed as a group and not as an individual mantis item. The svec requested to review all of the checker related mantis items together. 33. 2088 SV-AC Allow Checker construct (0001900) to include covergroups - fixed - Made changes requested by the svec. - 2008-02-28: Voice vote 7y/0n/0a - svec requested that this be reviewed as a group and not as an individual mantis item. The svec requested to review all of the checker related mantis items together. 34. 2110 SV-AC Allow checkers in procedural for loops - fixed - related to checkers - Dependency on 1900 and 1995 being approved (1995 was approved) - 2008-02-11: Passed by e-mail vote, 5y/0n/4a. There were friendly amendments. - Friendly amendments approved by voice vote on 2008-02-12, 8y/0n/0a. - Part of the Champion's email vote ending Feb 23. For: Surrendra Abstain: Brad - depends on 1900, which is still in feedback state Shalom - I think this should be postponed till approval of 1900. Francoise No: Stu, John Stu Checkers is too big of a change to the standard to be added at this late date. Checkers affect, or are affected by, many different parts of the standard. All SV committees need several weeks to study the impact of checkers. John Rationale for negative vote: I think that 2088 is changing in response to comments from SV-EC in a way that will not be consistent with the conditional changes on pp. 4-5. In particular, I am concerned about whether a covergroup declaration will be allowed in a checker. Friendly amendments: John - Smart quotes should not be used in the courier examples. - In the example beginning at the bottom of p. 2, the sampled value of ok is 1'b1 in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk due to the initialization assignment. It is true, although perhaps misleading, to say that the sampled value is always equal to (my_bits[3] == 0). This assumes, of course, that no other code updates my_bits. The declaration of control_variable_copy is not shown, and we do not know what its sampled value is in the first timestep in which there is a posedge of clk. <we ran out of time before discussing this item in the feb 25 conf. call> Mantis items in the resolved state which are not ready for the Champions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2250 SV-AC VPI changes related to 1932 waiting for input from the svcc 2. 2182 SV-AC Elaborate VPI diagrams for checkers waiting for input from the svcc 3. 2168 SV-AC Formal semantics for edge-sensitive clocks Has already been approved by the Champions - needs to go to Working Group 4. 2163 SV-BC Clarify hierarchical scopes created (or not) by for and foreach loops Was already approved by Champions with friendly amendments. It is now ready for the working group. 5. 2150 SV-AC use of automatic variables in action block and subroutine calls should not be allowed Was already approved by Champions with friendly amendments. It is now ready for the working group. 6. 2091 SV-AC Need a clarification where concurrent assertions may appear - fixed - was approved by champions with friendly amendments 7. 1987 SV-AC Change "verification statement" to "assertion" or "assertion statement" and add to the glossary - fixed - already approved by the champions (with friendly amendments) 8. 1728 SV-AC Introduce "let"statement - fixed - was already approved by the champions 9. 1447 SV-EC Contradictory stmts about unsized array dimensions (5.1 vs. 5.7 and 5.8) - was already approved by the championsReceived on Wed Mar 12 18:44:58 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 12 2008 - 18:45:01 PDT