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 ¿ 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 ¿ 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.