SV-EC Ballot Resolution Committee Meeting April 05, 2005 9:30 am to 5:00 pm [Minutes distributed for approval at next (sv-ec) committee meeting] (0) Day (4) (0) Month (4) (0) Year (5) --------- Attendees ------------------ (A) Brad Pierce (A) Cliff Cummings (A) Dave Rich (A) Francoise Martinolle (A) Karen Pieper (A) Mehdi Mohtashemi (A) Neil Korpusik (A) Ray Ryan (A) Steven Sharp (A) Surrendra Dudani (-) Arturo Salz (-) Bill Paulsen (-) Dennis Brophy (-) Stu Sutherland (-) Alex Wakefield (-) Yogesh Pandey (-) Don Mills (-) Eugene Zhang (-) David Smith Agenda: 1) Review the IEEE patent policy ref: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Karen Second: Ray Abstain: Opposed: 2) Procedures and Process Discussion for Ballot Issue Resolution A. Per Johny: Voting rights for our meetings We are now acting as a Ballot Resolution Committee, and not as the technical committees. As a result, all of the voting priviledges need to be reset. Anyone who shows up for the first 3 meetings can vote. No proxy vote allowed. After that, one needs to attend 2 consecutive meetings to gain voting rights, and 2 of the preceding 3 to retain them. B. Schedule: 1. Absolute deadline to resolve issues is April 19th. Champions meet April 11th, this is the effective date when issues should be resolved. According to Karen, anything up to 19th will most likely go to p1800. Should have an estimate of time for any item to be considered. c. TRACKING: a) Only the approved LRM changes go to svdb. b) All issues are to be tracked in spreadsheet. c) Committees to mark issues as resolved when appropriate. d) Resolved issues go to the champions as well as Stu for editing. e) Issues are sent back to the committees for review and closure. Karen: Spreadsheet will go out with re-balloting. D. Order to resolve issues Small amount of time on low-hanging fruit Negative-high Positive-high Negative-medium Positive-medium etc. Karen: from IEEE guidelines: Committee must address all negative ballot comments. but Johny has decided that committees will adress all ballot comments. Discussion on Consensus Building: - The concept of decreasing consensus was explained as the outcome of the committee making a change that could cause more negative votes in the re-ballot. - The best approach is to only make changes that don't threaten consensus. 3. Issues: http://www.eda.org/sv/sv-champions/P1800_Committee_Assignments_05_03_29.xls Start with low-hanging fruits (possible): Issue 270: Move: Brad Second: Ray Abstain: none Opposed: none Approved [AI: Brad to put this on the svdb] Issue: 271 Move: Dave Second: Surrendra Abstain: Steve (have not read the issue) Opposed: Approved AI: Brad to place this on svdb Issue 272: Move: Surrendra Second: Neil abstain: opposed: Approved Issue 281: Flexibility for the implemention to return value. Returning a positive number, checking for something greater than 0, which is positive. Dave: if it is flexiblity issue, explain what the implementation does so all others will provide same functionality * Decision: Leave it till end of the meeting for now. Not a consenus. For next Monday meeting. Issue 283: Correcting the BNF for the definition., section 5.1,5.6 Dynamic arrays can be multi-dimensional. Dave: Queue of any type, valid type, queue. In 5.1 there is discussion on this but this section is titled NOTES, as part of issue 262 for each committee, need to look at the notes. Cliff: has looked at the spreadsheet looking at the notes. 5.1 was not part of the issue 266 on the ballot. Cliff: proposed correction to 5.3, multi-dimension, Ray: resize the dynamic array, you re-allocate for the big size, index have variable instead of constants. Does not preclude contiguous with bit-padding. Dave: oversight on dynamic array be type-def. Note: Brining new issues is Not allowed by IEEE rules during balloting. Steve: Have to think about this issue, you can not change element sizes. Move: Brad to accept the changes offered in 283 Second: Dave Abstain: Ray (resizing multi-dimenaionl rules need to be looked into). Francoise, Steven, opposed: Cliff (vote no, So all can digest it till Monday). Will have to check the IEEE rules. for simple majority. Quorum as of now:9 people. Approved. Note: I have asked Karen for clarification to the simple majority, so far the vote stands, Issue 283 is approved. [AI: Brad to place it in SVDB] Brad: how about some low hanging Disapprove issues. Issue 250: Brad: The parenthetical comments could be removed from the proposal text. The change is the add the statement to end of page 323 Move: Ray Second: Surrendra Abstain: Opposed Approved. [AI: Ray, to fix the sentence, add to svdb Issue 252: Dave: add the paragraph, 329, 21.4.1, add to before Forexample., after the first sentence of that paragraph. Move: Ray Second: Dave Abstain: Oppose Approved: [AI: Ray, put this in mantis] Issue 255: cross_auto_bin_max is not defined. lets remove. * Decision: Monday to decide to remove it or not * [AI: Brad place the proposal for removing cross_auto_bin_max option in the svdb for everyone's review ] Issue 229: Brad: the concept, is ok, but not complete definition of what should be don, no bnf item Neil: two issues, one initialization for BC issue, and the part for section 13 is more of EC issue. Dave: initialization is not synthesis, BC. Francoise: What is the advantage of initializtion for struct. Brad: how about nets Steven: classes are initialized at instantiation, different for struct. Is there any rule to deal with Nets? Neil: it is usefull. Mehdi: Can we work on a further detailed proposal and leave it for Monday. Steven: is it allowed on dynami. Brad: the '{1,2,3} is not fixed size array. Dave: the dyanmic array is not right example, have to remove it. * Decsion: [Leave it for Monday meeting] * [AI: Mehdi: Send to sv-bc for discussion and review -- specifically first section, initialization, believed to be more of BC issue] * [AI: Dave/Ray to further detail the proposal for discussion on Monday] Issue 11: inside operator/wildcard, Proposal: Mantis item 410, the bug-fix has the proposal. Move: Steven Second: Brad Abstain: Opposed: Approved *[AI: Brad to put in proper html proposal]. Issue 266: Cliff if working on this. Folks need to watch for emails, *[Decision] Will take a look at on Monday. Issue 230: Neil: why event is not in the rewrite. Dave: dynamic is overlaoded word in the LRM. Steven: continuous assignments for automatic is forbidden. How about force, is it an issue? rewording required: Automatic variables and elements of dyanmic (tangential discussion: 14.7 event variables, non-blocking triggers, non-blocking assignments, event merging) "Automatic variables and elements of dynamic variables shall not be written with nonblocking, continuous or procedural continuous assignments. Automatic variables and references to elements of dynamic constructs—class objects and dynamically-sized variables—shall be limited to the procedural context." *[Decision] We will look at Monday, on the revised statement] **At this point in the meeting Randy (from Mentor joined the conf. call) Issue 232: Ray: why introduce stack semantics, Dave: v2k stack. garbage collection is the key. (ref static, check ) *[Decision] We will look at Monday] Issue 233: Dave: does not say what happens for inheritance, How null pointers are taken care of, how inheritance is done in bit-stream pack, how about unpack. bit-stream operator defined in the context of implicit pack/unpack. [AI: clarification, bit-stream operators for class, pack/unpack -- surrendra] *** (on the next issue at 2:15pm, only participants: Mehdi, Neil, Surrendra, Dave, Ray -- Do not have quorem in the meeting) Issue 235: Heirarchical references to ref ports (formal argument), disallowed. static args in verilog, static tasks exist, pass by reference in static tasks and functions.... not backward compatible. Surrendra: overly restrictive, Dave: dangling references to static refs, a problem. *[Decision] We will look at Monday] Issue 236: Ray: default args, evaluation, may not know the profile in Verilog another solutions: profile defined at compilation (prototype) time, what the function is has to resolve it. context of subroutine, you can have member variable in the function call. *[Decision] We will look at Monday] [AI: Ray finish the proposal for Monday meeting] 'the prototype has to be visible, the caller evaluates it' Issue 238: clock domain, sample the value in the postpone of the previous time slot. When does the update occur. *(3:00pm Francoise is on-line) Is there semantics for updating the value for cb.b observed region Can we figure when the actual update of clock block inputs occur. [AI: Ray, looking at couple of options for update/clocking block/ evaluation/register update, in the context of possible race condition'] [AI: Review this in conjunction with issue 189] *[Decision] We will look at Monday] Issue 240: Complex item, leave for Monday. *[Decision] We will look at Monday] Issue 237: Mantis 616 with friendly amendment: add a reference footnote 6 to this (in A.10) Move: Brad (to approve with above friendly ammendment. Second: Dave Abstain: Opposed: Approved [AI: Brad to add to svdb] Issue 239: Move: Ray Second: Surrendra Abstain: Opposed Approved [AI: Brad to add to svdb] Issue 251: Move: Dave Second: Surrendra Abstain: Opposed: Approved [AI: Brad to add svdb] Issue 125: Pass it sv-cc for consideration. Issue 204: Move: Brad to flag as not feasible. "The committe read and considered this feedback. While it has merit, the committee believes it is not feasible to implement at this time." Second: surrendra Abstain: Opposed: Issue 204 is marked 'not feasible Issue 253 & 254 (combined): with the following amendment: add page 333, 21.5 in the one line paragraph, after default -- 'ignored or illegal_bins'. Move: Ray Second: Neil Abstain: Francoise, Steven (no knowledge for covergaroup) Opposed; Approved. *[AI: Mehdi propose, one mantis item] Issue 161: specparam only in modules. Move: Brad Second: Steve Abstain: Opposed Approve *[AI: Brad add to svdb] Issue 109: Move: Brad All can be class items not just type declaration, and implement the proposal in mantis 537 Second: Neil Abstain: Opposed: Approved *[AI: Brad to add to the spreadsheet and mantis] Issue 189: Section 16.12, Mantis 596 Look at it on Monday in conjunction with 238. 4. Next meeting schedule: Tentative: by phone Monday April 11th, 11:00 am to 1:00pm (regularly scheduled meeting, biweekly). 5. Meeting adjourned at 4:40pm ============== SUMMARY of action items and issue items ============ On April 5, 2005: Issues assigned for Monday meeting from Tuesday discussion: 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236 238 & 189 (together), 240, 281 Issues approved: 11 109 161 237 239 250 251 252 253 254 270 271 272 283 Issues marked not feasible 204 Issues to be sent to other committees for review: 125 --> sv-cc 229 --> sv-bc (the first portion) Issues sent to sv-ec from other committees 1 from sv-bc Action items: (4/5/2005) 1) For issues 270: Brad to place it on SVDB. 2) For issues 271: Brad to place it on SVDB. 3) For issues 273: Brad to place it on SVDB 4) for issue 250 Ray, to fix the sentence, add to svdb 5) for issue 252: Ray to place it in svdb. 6) for issue 255: Brad to place proposal in the database 7) for issue 229: Mehdi to send it to sv-bc for review/discussion of the first portion, initialization 8) for issue 229: Dave/Ray to put further details to the proposal for review next Monday. 9) for issue 11: Brad to place the proper html proposal in svdb 10) for issue 230: Dave to do the rewrite/rewording of the proposal 11) for issue 233: Surrendra to write more clarification to the bit-stream operators for class, pack/unpack (for Monday discussion) 12) for issue 236: Ray to finish the proposal for default args, for Monday discussion, 'has to be visible, by caller..' 13) for issue 237: Brad to place into the svdb 14) for issue 239: Brad to place into the svdb 15) for issue 251: Brad to place into the svdb 16) for issue 125: Mehdi to send to sv-cc for review 17) for issues 254 & 254: Mehdi to add the proposal into svdb 18) for issue 161: Brad to place into the svdb 19) for issue 109: Brad to place into the svdb (Mantis 537) =================================================================== ==== Issues reviewed on April 5, 2005, ==== Need more discussion on Monday April 11, 2005 Approve Low 189 596 Entity-1 Disapprove High 229 Entity-4 Disapprove High 230 Entity-4 Disapprove High 232 Entity-4 Disapprove High 233 Entity-4 Disapprove High 235 Entity-4 Disapprove High 236 Entity-4 Disapprove High 238 Entity-4 Disapprove High 240 Entity-4 Disapprove 266 Entity-6 Approve High 281 Entity-7 ==== Issues sent to sv-ec by other committees for review Approve 1 Entity-4 ==== Issues reviewed on April 5, 2005, ==== Votes were taken for resolution. Approve High 11 Entity-1 Approve High 109 Entity-1 Approve Low 161 Entity-1 Disapprove 204 Entity-2 Disapprove Low 237 Entity-4 Disapprove Low 239 Entity-4 Disapprove High 250 Entity-4 Disapprove Low 251 Entity-4 Disapprove High 252 Entity-4 Disapprove Low 253 Entity-4 Disapprove Low 254 Entity-4 Approve High 270 Entity-7 Approve High 271 Entity-7 Approve High 272 Entity-7 Approve High 283 Entity-7 ==== Issues sent to other committees for review ==== Approve Low 125 294 Entity-1 Disapprove High 229 Entity-4 (first segment, initialization) ========================================================== ==== Issues not yet discussed in the first meeting=== issue # mantis # Disapprove High 255 Entity-4 --------------------------------------------------------------- Approve High 2 Entity-1 Approve High 5 Entity-1 Approve High 7 Entity-1 Approve High 8 Entity-1 Approve High 10 Entity-1 Approve High 13 Entity-1 Approve High 22 Entity-1 Approve High 23 Entity-1 Approve High 24 Entity-1 Approve High 30 Entity-1 Approve High 31 551 Entity-1 Approve High 32 553 Entity-1 Approve High 36 270 Entity-1 Approve High 94 511 Entity-1 Approve High 95 512 Entity-1 Approve High 96 516 Entity-1 Approve High 97 518 Entity-1 Approve High 98 519 Entity-1 Approve High 99 521 Entity-1 Approve High 100 522 Entity-1 Approve High 101 523 Entity-1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approve Low 122 251 Entity-1 Approve Low 123 253 Entity-1 Approve Low 162 552 Entity-1 Approve Low 163 554 Entity-1 Approve Low 171 564 Entity-1 Approve Low 187 594 Entity-1 Approve Low 188 595 Entity-1 Approve Low 190 597 Entity-1 Approve Low 199 607 Entity-1 Approve Low 200 608 Entity-1 Approve Low 201 609 Entity-1 ===============================================================