-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Champions Continuation of March 13, 2008 Conference call March 20, 2008 Thursday 7:30-9:00 AM PDT Attendees: ---------- 1. * Stu Sutherland 2. * Surrendra Dudani 3. * Brad Pierce 4. * Francoise Martinolle 5. * Shalom Bresticker 6. * John Havlicek 7. * Dave Rich 8. * Neil Korpusik Request from Jeita on consistency of style for syntax excerpts and tables ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stu would like to leave the syntax style the way it is. Karen agrees What do the champions think? I had forgotten to allow time for JEITA's request to make the style for syntax excerpts and tables consistent. I had researched this a few months ago, shortly after draft 4 was released, and determined that we are within IEEE style guidelines to make the two consistent (the IEEE has a definite style to follow for tables, but syntax excerpts is our own creation, and has no style guideline--the current style follows that of figures, but can be changed to the style of tables). There is a related request from JEITA that the title for syntax excerpts be moved to before the excerpt instead of after. We can do that. The unanswered question is do we want to do this? JEITA requested the change so that when a person searches for, or hyperlinks to, a syntax excerpt title, they jump to the beginning of the excerpt, rather than the end. That is useful, but when reading the PDF or printed LRM pages, my personal preference is to see the title at the bottom of the box. Would you like me to ask the various committee chairs what they prefer, or would you like to just make a judgment call on this? Regarding the impact on the schedule, changing the style will only take a few minutes, as that is a global change that can be applied using search and replace. Moving the placement of the title is a half-days work; it requires manually searching for and moving the title line for every syntax excerpt in the entire LRM. List of Mantis items that are ready for review: ---------------------------------------------- 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 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) 16. 1830 SV-AC JEITA: A.2.10 There are no Sequence methods(ended, triggered, matched) in the BNF [added to my notes] - fixed - 2008-02-19: The friendly amendments were approved by voice vote, 6y/0n/0a. - Part of the Champion's email vote ending Feb 23. For: Brad, Stu, Surrendra, Shalom, John No: Francoise Francoise What is the VPI model for those sequence methods? Needs to be passed to VPI. Brad Note to editor: The 'ended', 'triggered' and 'matched' in BNF should be red. - Mantis was not updated with the results of the email vote 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. - John added feedback to the bug notes 03/18/08 The changes at the beginning of 16.14 are not consistent with 1987. 1987 changes the list of the kinds of assertion (assert, assume, cover) to 16.2. I am changing 1987 to add restrict to this list in 16.2, and 1987 deletes the list from 16.14. There is another statement in 16.14 that needs to be modified: "The assert, assume, or cover statements can be referenced by their optional name." I will change this in 1987 to use "assertion statement" rather than listing the kinds. These changes will make 1806 dependent on 1987. 1806 could duplicate these changes to be made independent. 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. - Email from Shalom 03/13/08 Assuming that default clocking is not defined, the following two examples are illegal because no clock can be inferred: assign x = $rose(b); // illegal always @(posedge clk) begin ... @(negedge clk2); x = $past(y, 5); // illegal end I'm in doubt about whether the first example would work even if a default clocking is defined. It might not be illegal, but I am in doubt about whether it would work, because continuous assignments are triggered only when a net or variable on the right hand side changes. Can anyone resolve my doubt one way or the other? 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 [updated my notes] - fixed - was sent back to the svac by the champions Jan 17 The proposal was updated and approved by the committee. - Was sent to the sv-ec for review by the Working Group The sv-ec chose to take no action at this point in time. - Was sent back to the svac from the champions The proposal was updated and approved by the svac. - 2008-02-05: voice vote to approve the proposal dated 2008-01-31. 8y/0n/0a <we ran out of time before discussing this item in last meeting> 24. 1601 SV-AC new keyword for untyped formal arguments [updated my notes] - fixed - Feedback was provided by the svbc - Sent back to the committee by the Champions Was updated and approved by the svac. - Failed to pass in the Champions email vote Updated and approved by the committee - Was sent to the sv-ec for review by the Champions The svec chose not to take any action at this point in time. <we ran out of time before discussing this item at the last meeting> 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 27. 1340 SV-BC inconsistency between module ports and task arguments [updated my notes] - fixed - svbc has reapproved the proposal - On August 20, 2007 the SV-BC unanimously voted to accept the proposal. - 1 no vote from Champions email vote of Sept 17, 2007. - Unofficial explanation: (from Shalom) At the last meeting of SV-BC, the committee decided to re-approve the proposal as is. With respect to the Champions' feedback bringing up larger issues, SV-BC decided not to address them within the scope of 1340, but rather to open a new Mantis (maybe two) that addresses them, but time does not allow them to be resolved now. New Mantis item is 2273. - On February 4, 2008, the SV-BC unanimously approved the proposal. - Part of the Champion's email vote ending Feb 23. For: Brad, Francoise, Surrendra, Shalom, John No: Stu Stu This change is not backwards compatible, at least the way I interpret it. The new text "then the default data type is logic if it is the first argument or if the argument direction is explicitly specified" implies that even when a data type has been specified, the next time a direction is given, the previously defined data type is dropped, and the data type is changed to "logic". I don't think that is how current implementation work. Also, what if "ref" is specified instead of a direction? - Shalom mentioned that he wasn't sure what state it should be in 03/08/08 Mantis 1465 deals with some of John's feedback on 1340. 1465 is covered under the heading of "champions feedback". 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). Checker related mantis items: List from the svec ------------------ 1 1900 - on agenda 2 1549 - approved by WG 3 1681 - approved by WG 4 1648 - on agenda - default reset for assertions 5 1728 - already approved by champions 6 1682 - approved by WG 7 2088 - on agenda 8 2089 - on agenda -------------------- 9 2110 - on agenda - not on svec list 31. 1900 SV-AC Add new 'checker' construct to SVA - Fixed - Proposal failed in Champions email vote ending on Feb 4 - 2 no-votes (Dave, Shalom), 1 abstain (John) - Dave - This proposal needs to be addressed when it can have the full attention of all the committees as effects every part of the language. Otherwise, I feel that this enhancement goes beyond the level of enhancements authorized by the P1800 PAR in embedding a new language with SV. The number of keywords and statements being introduced can not be thoroughly reviewed with the resources we have for the current par. A suggestion would be to call a join meeting to have the SV-AC present this proposal to members of all the other committies as part of a design review. - Shalom - Sent a lot of feedback to the sv-ac (in 5 parts). - John - had quite a few friendly amendments - The proposal was updated based on feedback from the champions - 2008-02-28: Voice vote 7y/0n/0a to approve the 2008-02-27 .pdf version, parts 1 and 2. 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: Francoise 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> Additional mantis items that are now in the resolved state: 35. 2243 sv-ec issue with option.per_instance fixed 36. 677 sv-bc duplicate 37. 1709 sv-bc How to use the stream operator in an expression fixed 38. 1526 sv-bc Streaming concatenation, like assignment pattern, has no self-determined type fixed 39. 1769 sv-ac Elaboration time user assertion and error reporting tasks fixed Mantis items in the resolved state which do not need to be on the agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Erik has sent out an update - 03/10/08 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) --> - Shalom 03/13/08 Mantis 1806 introduces the restrict property assertion statement. Mantis 1987 does not seem to take this into account. 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 champions List of Mantis items that were handled in the March 13, 2008 conference call ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2219 SV-BC not clear whether continuous assignment of event is allowed Passed unanimously in March 13, 2008 conference call. 2. 2173 SV-AC Add case construct for properties. Passed with one opposed. <now back in feedback state...> 3. 2106 SV-BC Clarifications needed for declaration before use of objects Passed unanimously 4. 2100 SV-AC Add synchronous resets syntax as oppose to the asynchronous Passed unanimously with Shalom's friendly amendment. <now in feedback state> 5. 2097 SV-BC release/deassign with variables driven by continuous Passed unanimously 6. 2069 SV-AC Formal semantics for coverage is missing Sent back to sv-ac. <now in feedback state> 7. 2043 SV-BC $cast should appear in 19.5 Conversion functions Passed unanimously - resolution of 'no change required' 8. 2005 SV-AC Solution for glitch problem in immediate assertions Passed with one abstain (with a friendly amendment). 10. 1932 SV-AC Introduce LTL and other temporal operators [added to my notes] Sent back to the sv-ac. <now in feedback state> All of the following are duplicates of other Mantis items. 9. 1982 SV-AC 16.7: Description of actual arguments is unclear and maybe 12. 1852 SV-AC Ballot Feedback Issue STU2: Declarations on Assertions 13. 1849 SV-AC Update VPI object diagrams for immediate assume, cover 15. 1833 SV-AC JEITA: 16.3 Precise definition of immediate assertion 19. 1786 SV-AC Definition of "if else" in Annex F seems broken 26. 1564 SV-BC 4.16, glossary: inconsistent definitions of bit-stream type 29. 0588 SV-CC 31.9 uses the term "user", and has grammatically incorrect 30. 0587 SV-CC 31.8.7 Please replace the term "user" with a more accurate termReceived on Tue Mar 18 18:58:21 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 18 2008 - 18:58:24 PDT