[sv-cc] SV-CC Minutes for 11/03/04: tallies

Charles,

Thanks for all your efforts to reconstrut the votes and other minutes
for the 11/03/04 meeting.

The only difference I see is item 205, for which I believe Ghassan
abstained, rather than opposed. My notes have the original vote as
8 for, 2 against and 4 abstentions. (My notes do have him voting 'no'
on item 50).

Also -- I did alter the 205 proposal as directed, so that the proposed
new section is E.6.9, rather than E.6.8.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Charles Dawson
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: SV-CC
> Subject: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 11/03/2004
>
> Minutes of 11/03/2004 SV-CC Meeting.
>
> ATTENDEES
> 000000000
> 444444444
> 111110000
> 100009999
> 022102211
> 360369250
> xxxxxxxxx Charles Dawson
> xxxxxxxxx Francoise Martinolle
> xxxxxxxxx Doug Warmke
> xxxxx-xxx Bassam Tabbara
> xxxxxxxxx Andrzej Litwiniuk
> xxxxxxxxx Joao Geada
> xxxxx-xxx Jim Vellenga
> xxxxxxxx- Ralph Duncan
> xxxx--x-- Rob Slater
> xxxxx-x-- Sachchidananda Patel
> xxxxxxx-- Michael Rohleder
> xxx-xxx-- John Stickley
> xxxxxx-x- Jim Garnett
> xxxxx--x- Steven Dovich
> xx-x-xxxx Ghassan Khoory
> --------x Swapnajit Mitra
> --------x Karen Pieper
> ------x-- Angshuman Saha
> --x------ Kevin Cameron
> x-------- Amit Kohli
>
> 1. Reviewed Patent information.
>
> - Charles Dawson read the patent information.
>
>
> 2. Reviewed minutes of the 10/26/04 Meeting.
>
> - Ghassan reported that he was at the last meeting and the minutes
> did not reflect that.
> - ?/?. Minutes accepted as amended.
>
>
> 3. Liaisons
>
> - Francoise reported that the SV-BC has accepted a 1364 change
> that will result in some expressions not having a value.
> This will
> require a chance to vpi_get_value(). Francoise took an action
> to find the Item number.
> - No other meetings were reported on.
>
>
> 4. New business
>
> - There were no further objections to Items 044, 078, 156, and 198,
> so they are now considered PASSED.
> - Chas brought up that PTF 342 has had a proposal for
> several months
> now. JimV and Stu took actions to make sure we do not delete
> parts which are important. Since Stu is not attending
> our meeting,
> it seems unlikely he will be able to do this. JimV was unsure he
> would be able to do this. Chas took an action to re-verify that
> the cross references in the remainder of the
> specification have been
> properly fixed. Steve suggested that the sections which
> are deleted
> have a reference to the prior version of the spec. Chas
> to add this
> to the proposal.
> - No new business was brought up.
>
>
> 5. Reviewed of items with proposals.
>
> - Item 205: Binary compatibility for packed arrays as
> fields and as elements of unpacked arrays
>
> This item was discussed further. In particular, Francoise wanted
> answers to the questions she posed via email. ?/?.
>
> We voted on this as follows:
>
> For: Francoise, Doug, Bassam, Ralph, JimG, Rob,
> Sachi, Michael, John
> Against: Andrzej, Sachi, Ghassan
> Abstain: JimV, Joao, Steven
>
> Proposal PASSED.
>
> - Item 123: Clarify meaning of "member typespec" in VPI
>
> JimV commented that there was a problem he encountered
> while we talked about this
> last week. He fixed it shortly after the meeting. He
> also realized that Item 59
> (as well as the previously agreed upon 121, and 122) was
> a duplicate. Any
> objections to marking 59 as a duplicate? No.
> ?/? PASSED (unanimous).
>
> - Item 050: Change DPI svLogicVec32 representation to
> match PLI/VPI aval/bval representation
>
> Doug explained that the issue was that DPI values were
> not compatible with
> VPI values. Andrzej thought that this could have been
> corrected a few years
> ago, but Synopsys has customers now. Chas pointed out
> that there are many
> more VPI applications out there, and to make the two
> interfaces usable together
> the application developer would have to do data
> marshaling. Joao thought
> that the main point behind DPI was performance, that DPI
> gives back pointers
> to the simulator's version of the data while VPI makes a
> copy. Joao argued
> that VCS would have to make a copy if this passes for DPI. ?/?
>
> We voted on this as follows:
>
> For: Francoise, Doug, Bassam, Ralph, JimG, JimV,
> Steven, Michael, John
> Against: Andrzej (Strongly NO. Votum separatum!),
> Joao, Sachi, Ghassan
> Abstain: Rob
>
> Proposal PASSED.
>
> - Item 199: More detail needed for DPI treatment of
> dynamic array arguments
>
> Discussed. ?/? PASSED (unanimous)
>
> - Item 200: Clarifications needed in DPI Annex E.6, "Data Types"
>
> We determined that Item 205 needs to be amended because
> the section number
> conflicts with the number proposed here. This amendment
> was accepted (Ralph
> to implement). ?/? PASSED (unanimous)
>
>
> Meeting ended at 1:05pm (EDT)
>
>
> 6. Old Business
>
> -
>
> 7. Action items
>
> SV-CC action items:
> - Chas to assign remaining Items to those without open ones now.
> - Chas to get the database updated to reflect the previous
> meetings.
> - Francoise to ask Peter Ashenden what was done to improve
> printing from Rational Rose.
> - Francoise to inquire about the feasibility of third parties
> shipping the UML for the diagrams.
> - JimV to resubmit a proposal for Item 123.
> - Joao/Francoise to file SV-BC item asking to define linearization.
> - Francoise to check with SV-BC on default return type of
> functions.
> - Chas to ask Karen about updating the diagrams (does not fit well
> with approved process).
> - Andrzej to make sure the LRM says that for the C layer of DPI,
> representations of a type are always the same regardless of where
> it is (packed struct, member of array, ...etc.).
> - Francoise and Bassam to reconcile sections 28 and 31.
>
> PTF action items:
> - Steve to compare BNF with the access available
> for attributes to see if they match
> - Francoise to remove "+" from tags in UML diagrams and
> add vpi prefix where appropriate.
> - Francoise to send out HTML for 1364-2001 diagrams, using
> something other than JPG for importing diagrams into frame.
> - Stu to write proposal for PTF 368.
> - Francoise to write proposals for PTF 373, 374, and 396.
> - Steve to write proposals for PTF 311, and 495.
> - Sachi to write proposals for PTF 307, 312, and 313.
> - All to review Generates proposal from ETF committee.
> - Francoise, et all to review BTF generates proposal
> for the upcoming vote, with particular emphasis on
> how we will address generates in VPI.
> - Stu to enter new PTF item for save/restart/reset issue.
> - JimG to write proposals for PTF 517, 533, and 534.
> - Chas to write proposal for PTF 296.
> - Stu to write an addition to the proposal for PTF 342.
> This will cover that PLI 1.0 was deprecated in section 20
> and include some of the stuff currently in section 21
> (like the descriptions for the checktf and calltf).
> - Francoise to lookup wording for PTF 524 in VHPI.
> - JimV to try to rework proposal for PTF 530 to address other
> issues we found in 26.6.17.
> - Francoise will open a new PTF issue to look for
> situations like 25.6.15,
> where multiple methods are used access the same object enclosure
> - Chas to reword proposal for PTF 525.
> - Draft a straw man proposal using a clean slate with no
> concern for
> existing PLI/VPI on the best way to represent all Verilog and
> SystemVerilog kinds and types. This straw man will then
> be used as a
> basis for discussing backward compatibility with the
> existing reg, net,
> variables, functions, and parameter diagrams. It may be
> decided that
> full backward compatibility is not possible, or is not
> the best approach
> moving forward.
> - Sachi will file a PTF item for the clarification of what
> can be done
> at ROsync time and putting values in future times.
> - Francoise to file a PTF item that asks to specify the
> order that iteration
> occur in, when the order is important.
> - Steve to add ETF item for Annex C to remove the
> Informative label, but
> still allow the contents to be optional.
> - Chas to re-verify the cross references are properly
> updated for PTF 342.
> - Chas to add to proposal for PTF 342 a reference to the
> prior version of the
> specification
>
>
> 8. Items for consideration at the next meeting (they already
> have proposals):
>
> - Item 201: More details needed on DPI string argument handling
> - Item 277: Spelling error in Table 31-4 "Instance" not "Instances"
> - Item 060: bad cross-reference in notes 3 and 4 of diagram 31.10
> - Item 274: Small 2-state type svBitVec32 provokes C
> coding difficulties
> - Item 050: Change DPI svLogicVec32 representation to
> match PLI/VPI aval/bval representation
> - Item 156: Jeita 31: In Index, issue with blocking and DPI imports
> - Item 199: More detail needed for DPI treatment of
> dynamic array arguments
> - Item 200: Clarifications needed in DPI Annex E.6, "Data Types"
> - Item 201: More details needed on DPI string argument handling
> - Item 274: Small 2-state type svBitVec32 provokes C
> coding difficulties
>
> --
> Charles Dawson
> Senior Engineering Manager
> NC-Verilog Team
> Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
> 270 Billerica Road
> Chelmsford, MA 01824
> (978) 262 - 6273
> chas@cadence.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 9 08:59:25 2004