Minutes from SV-AC Committee Meeting
Date: 2016-10-26
Time: 16.00:00 UTC (9:00 PDT)
Duration: 1 hour
Agenda
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 2016-03-09:
v[.x-xxxxx---xx-x] Mehbub Ali (Intel)
n[.xx--x------x--] Ang Boon Chong (Intel)
v[x-x-xx-x-x—-x-x] Shalom Bresticker (Accellera)
n[.x-------------] Dennis Brophy (Mentor Graphics)
v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx-] Eduard Cerny (Synopsys)
v[xx-xx-xxxxxxxx-] Ben Cohen (Accellera)
t[x-xxxxxx-xxxxxx] Dmitry Korchemny (Synopsys - Chair)
n[xxx-x-x--------] Manisha Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
v[xxxxxxxx-xx-xxx] Anupam Prabhakar (Mentor Graphics)
v[xxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Erik Seligman (Intel – Co-chair)
n[x-x-xxxx-xx-x--] Samik Sengupta (Synopsys)
|- attendance on 2016-09-26
|--- voting eligibility on 2016-09-26
Minutes
IEEE patent policy reminder
Minutes approval
Erik: Move to approve the minutes from 5-Oct-2016.
Anupam: Second.
Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a.
Email ballot results
Issues 1853 and 3559 passed: 4y/0n/0a
Mantis items in progress
3928: Fix text in LRM encouraging incorrect coding of "clk iff enable"
Anupam: Why this change is needed at all?
Erik: It is better to get rid of misleading examples in the LRM.
Mehbub: && is glitchy.
Dmitry: There are several editorial issues in the proposal.
Mehbub uploaded an updated proposal.
Erik: Move to approve 3928.
Anupam: second.
Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a.
4183: Returned value of sampled value functions should well-defined
Anupam: Too many places to change.
Erik: It is important to clearly define the exact return values.
Shalom: Not all sections mentioned in the preamble are addressed in this proposal. Base version and target version are obsolete. Add a note that this Mantis addressed only sampled value and bit-vector system functions.
Anupam: 6.3.1 already defines what true is.
Shalom: It relates only to individual bits.
Anupam: Is it a real problem of not having exact definition of return values?
Erik, Shalom: The user already imply it, but this is not clearly stated in the LRM. Better to have resolved it in this PAR.
Anupam: I am OK with it.
Erik: Move to approve pending on editorial changes mentioned by Shalom.
Anupam: Second
Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a
Opens
Shalom presented the issue raised by SV-BC regarding 5041 that in 39.5.1 ‘handle’ should be used in the examples, rather than assertionHandle.
Erik: Move to recommend to use in all examples in 39.5.1 ‘handle’ rather than assertionHandle
Anupam: Second
Motion passed: 4y/0n/0a