Minutes of the October 27, 2003 SV-BC Meeting (Design Modeling Committee) 21211 Day 73958 11000 Month 00998 00000 Year 33333 -------a Tom Kiley - Mentor aaa--aaa Matt Maidment - Intel aaaaaaaa Brad Pierce - Synopsys aaaaaa-a Karen Pieper - Synopsys aaa---aa Johny Srouji - Intel aa-aaaaa Dan Jacobi - Intel aaaaaaaa Dave Rich - Synopsys a-aa-aaa Francoise Martinolle- Cadence aaa-aa-a Jay Lawrence - Cadence aaaaaaa- Dennis Brophy - Mentor ---a--a- Vassilios Gerousis - Infineon aa-aaa-- Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design aaaaaa-- Mark Hartoog - Synopsys --a--a-- Don Mills - LCDM Engineering --aa---- Doug Warmke - Mentor aaaa---- Rishiyur Nikhil - Bluespec -a-a---- Stu Sutherland - Sutherland HDL- aa------ Peter Flake - Synopsys Meeting Minutes: ================ Karen moves that we accept the minutes from the 10/13/03 meeting. No opposed. No abstain. Passed. ------------------------------------- Action Items from the Last Meeting -------------------------------------- ==> Karen: update the web to reflect today's changes, new proposals, and new issues filed on sv-bc Done ==> Francoise is concerned that the wording for issue 47 may not apply to object class instance. She will open an issue on this. Not completed yet. ==> Francoise, Jay: Confirm that issue 37 is compatible with IEEE 1364. Syntax for is not legal. You cannot connect a 4 bit port to a scalar, you have to connect the entire port or put 1'bz to indicate it is undriven. Neither of the syntax's in the email are legal. Note that the problem description here is not the problem, Issue 78 was opened to reflect this issue. Dave points out that the question is is the proposal backward compatible with the 1364. Jay had raised an issue when the proposal was passed. If there is a backward compatibility issue with the proposal, we need to specify it, so we can address it. Jay indicates that there are problems expanding the proposal beyond modports, but it is ok. Brad moves that we close this action item. Dave seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. ==> Doug Warmke: Issue 67 is waiting for a formal proposal ==> Johny to communicate that issue 45 is moving to the EC Done ==> Dave to check with the EC that issue 49 will work with classes. Not done. __________________________________________________________________ Issues ------ 72: $inset also provides similar functionality. Are they the same? inside allows ranges and $inset does not. 17.9 and 22.7 are definitions of $inset. They are not the same because $inset is based on equality. inside looks like a superset of functionality of $inset. Ranges only make sense on integral types, not enums. We will address the resolution of this in our face-to-face 73: Brad moves that we accept this proposal. Karen seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 14: The proposal needs to be modified, by changing the last bullet from section 7.14 text (following paragraph starting: "Unpacked structures types ..." : - Imported by hierarchical reference To: - Imported through an interface port Also change "Unpacked structures types" to "Unpacked structure types" Also change "name of its type alone" to "name of their type alone" Dave moves that we accept the proposal as modified. Mark seconds. No opposed. Jay abstains. Passes. (Jay was on hold on the phone). 57: Brad moves that we accept this proposal. Danny seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 65: Karen moves that we accept this proposal. Dave seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 70: Brad has an action item to update this proposal per Peter's BNF comments. We also need to clarify the text surrounding the application of these keywords. Peter will take the second action item. Brad and Peter will submit their issues together as one issue. 76: We need some text to go with this change before we can pass the proposal. Strawpoll: Do we want to accept this proposal once updated? Yes: Nikhil, Danny, Dennis, Mark No: No one spoke up. Is there a voluteer for the text? No. Brad has volunteered to review BNF once the text is in place. Johny will send mail to Adam that text is required. 98: In the production for parameter_port_declaration the word type should be in bold. We need some LRM text to describe this change. (An example is required). Brad will add language. 75: This is not the same as 98. Nikhil will propose and example for section 20. The relavent V2K section is 12.2.3. We are not adding anything to the language, just clarifying that you can do this. 99: Danny moves that we accept this proposal. Karen seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. Discussion on Agenda for our Face-To-Face Meeting ------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 53, 67, 49, 71, 54, 48 9am until 4 is the current schedule. Open items ---------- 44: Ask Greg Jaxon to make a proposal 59: Karen moves that we close 59 as a duplicate of 61. Dave seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 61: The BNF is fine. There is a language problem. Brad can work with David to get the right form of the proposal. Danny will remake the proposal. 60: Dave moves we close it. Peter seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 62: Johny will raise this issue with the AC. Danny volunteered to look for other locations in the BNF where attributes may be missing. We discussed where attributes should be allowed. The relevant ETF issues are 295 and 337. 68: ETF 217 addresses the same issue. Dave moves that we close this issue because everyone agrees that the statement is correct. Cliff seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 69: Mark has volunteered to own this one. Open Action Items for the Next Meeting -------------------------------------- ==> Doug Warmke: Issue 67 is waiting for a formal proposal ==> Dave to check with the EC that issue 49 will work with classes. Not done. ==> Brad and Peter to update proposal for issue 70 ==> Johny to send mail to Adam indicating that he needs to make a proposal for issue 76 if he wants it to be addressed. ==> Brad to add language for issue 98 ==> Nikhil to add an example for issue 75 ==> Karen to ask Greg Jaxon to make a proposal for issue 44 ==> Danny to make a proposal for 61 ==> Johny to raise issue 62 with the SV-AC. ==> Danny to look for other locations in the BNF that need attributes. ==> Mark to make a proposal for issue 69. Our next meeting is 11/10/03 at 9am Pacific.