SV-EC Committee Meeting Monday August 23 2007 11:00am - 1:00pm PST With the new calculations for voting rights below... 3/4 rule = 0.75 * 26 = 19 Meeting number: -------------- 00000000000000000000000000 00000000011111111112222222 12345678901234567890123456 Meeting Days: ------------- (12120202010202010131120202) Day (48159360488250595604159360) (00001111110000000000000000) Month (88990011221122334445667788) (00000000000000000000000000) Year (66666666667777777777777777) ------ Attendees --------- (-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAAA-A-) Arturo Salz 22 (--AAA-AAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAA--) Cliff Cummings 20 (AAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Dave Rich 25 (AA-A-AAA-AAAAAAA---AAAAAAA) Francoise Martinolle 20 (-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAA) Mehdi Mohtashemi 24 (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAA) Neil Korpusik 25 (AAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Ray Ryan 25 (AAAAAAAAAAAA-AAA---AAA-AAA) Gordon Vreugdenhil 21 (AAAAAA--AAAAA-A--AAAAAAAAA) Steven Sharp 21 (--AAAA-A------------------) Phil Moorby 05 - No voting rights (---AA-AAA-AAAA-AA-A-------) Doug Warmke 12 - No voting rights (AAAAAAA---AA-A-AAAAAAA---A) Stu Sutherland 18 - No voting rights (-AAAA--AAAA-A-AAAAA-AAAA-A) Heath Chambers 19 (-AAAAAA-A----AAAAAAAAA--AA) Don Mills 18 - No voting rights (--AA--A---A-AAA--A-AAAA-AA) Jonathan Bromley 14 (--A-----------------------) Logie Ramachandran 01 - No voting rights (----AAA-------------------) Melvin Cardoza 03 - No voting rights (-----A-AAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAA) Mark Hartoog 19 (-------A-------------A----) Satia (from Intel) 02 - No voting rights (--------AAA---------------) Rob Slater 03 - No voting rights (-------------A------------) Alex Gran - Mentor 01 - No voting rights (---------------A-AAA-AAAAA) Mike Mintz 09 (------------------AAAAAAAA) Geoffrey Coram 08 (-------------------AAAAAAA) David Scott - Mentor 07 (------------------------A-) Benjamin Chen - Cisco 01 - No voting rights on 8/20/2007 14 people (other than the chair) currently have voting rights ** Minutes taken by Neil Korpusik and Mehdi Mothashemi ////////////////// August 20, 2007 ///////////////////////// 1. Review IEEE patent policy ------------------------ ref: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Gordon- Assume that the patent policy was read Second: Heath Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed unanimously 2. Review meeting minutes/Notes: -------------------------------- http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_August_6_2007_Minutes.txt David Scott shows up as David in some places and Scott in others. From now on his name will be David in the minutes. Move: Gordon- approve meeting minutes of August 6th 2007 Second: David Scott Abstain: Heath (was not present on August 6th) Opposed: None Passed 3. Item from SV-BC today's meeting. issue 801. Gord - the example referred to is similar to a Queue operation - concat of unpacked elements. No description in the LRM for allowing this today. - should the sv-bc or the sv-ec take this item on? Dave - assignment patterns when introduced didn't include slices within a concatenation. Steven - in a queue it seems to refer to a list in such cases Francoise - 520, 522 are also related Mehdi - also 412 - 520, 522, and 801 should all be addressed at the same time with a single proposal. Gord - there doesn't yet seem to be consensus on the direction Some high-level discussion might be needed before a proposal is written up. AI/Gord - move 801 to the sv-ec ownership. Cross link with 412, 520 522. 4. Champions meeting Aug 15th (updates) Almost the whole meeting was spent discussing the feedback from the Champions. Neil: ahead of the meeting most of the sv-ec items were listed and reviewd by the champions. The level of detail was too low level. Mantis items passed by the Champions after making friendly amendments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Id Summary 1789 Clarification of string behavior svec Passed unanimously by email vote June 22, 2007 Friendly amendments: - "1. Change this sentence (on page 128)": in Draft 3a, this is page 126. - In 2, " bit [10:0] a = "\x41"; // assigns to a `b000_0100_0001": the back-tic in the comment preceding 'b' should be an apostrophe. - In 4, "one of them can be a string literal which is implicitly converted to a string type data object for the comparison": this appears twice, there should be a comma before the word 'which'. Geoffrey - Mehdi posted a new proposal on Aug. 16th Mehdi - all the changes should be in there now Mantis items sent back to the sv-ec for updates: ------------------------------------------------ 1787 LRM needs to discuss transition bins of length 1 svec Approved on April 30, 2007 unanimously. - 1787 should refer to 18.5.1 instead of 18.4.1. - The mantis "Additional info" section refers to sv-178702.html but that attachment was not found - There was an approved friendly amendment ("shall be illegal") That update is not in the current proposal. David - Doug updated it yesterday. Mehdi - will update the additional information field. Move: David Scott - approve proposal sv-1787-1-forD3a for mantis 1787 Second: Gordon Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed 1777 Clarification of 1800-2005 section 18.4.1 svec Approved on April 30, 2007 unanimously. - 1777 is not updated to Draft 3a. It refers to 18.4.1 in 1800-2005, which is apparently 18.5.1 in Draft 3a - The struck-out text starts with "The goto repetition with nonconsecutive occurrence", but I don't see the word "goto" in the original. There may be other differences. - The capitalization of 'goto' in the proposal is inconsistent. In Draft 3a, it seems to be consistently uncapitalized. - The intransitive "will increment" is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph that says bins are "incremented". - It's a little odd that it says "Next, ..." regarding what happens on the 15th-18th samples, and only after that talks about what happens on the 12th-13th samples. Don - will make the changes in a couple of days Mehdi - will send email to Neil when the changes are completed. Don - wants an index to goto Add a note to the editor to the text of the proposal. 1736 Example in 12.4.2 has dynamic array packed. svec Approved on April/24/2007 unanimously by email vote. Would be nice to change xref in Mantis summary line to 13.5.2. Dave - it looks like Shalom changed it already. 1723 Size method for associative arrays svec Approved on June/11/2007 with 2 No votes: Cliff - doesn't think of size as being the number of elements, thinks of it as the address spanned, encompassed by elements already allocated. Stu - no change needed - The reference should be to 7.10.1 instead of 17.10.1. - Grammar issues "The syntax for the num() and size()methods are as follows:" should be "The syntax for the num() and size()methods is as follows:" Dave - not sure why grammar issues held it up. Was updated August 15th. The editor has latitude to make changes. Mehdi and Dave - both think the grammar is ok 1680 "literal string" should be "string literal" svec Approved on April/24/2007 unanimously by email vote. - 1680 was not updated to Draft 3a. - There are text as well as section number issues. Mehdi - the proposal was updated August 16th. Dave - will be reviewing usage of the word string - mantis 1989 will address most of the bug note from Shalom Shalom added a bug note on August 20th that has a bunch of other changes. Mehdi - original 3.1 The latest proposal has this removed. AI/Mehdi - add a bug note for Shalom's latest issue 1655 Coverage Calculation Corner Case Crumminess svec Approved on April 30, 2007 unanimously. 1. The title line of the proposal says 18.10, but it should be 18.11 (or 18.6 and 18.11). 2. Similarly, the line "ADD the specified blue text 18.5 as follows:" should refer to 18.6. 3. "intersect cross-products specified" should not be hyphenated, for consistency with LRM. 4. In "since the explicitly declared bins covers all cases for which i == 0", "bins" should be "bin". 5. "ADD the specified blue text to 18.5.1 as follows:" should refer to 18.6.1. 6. In "Additionally, the cross retains those automatically-generated bins that represent cross-products not intersecting any of the user-defined bins. There are 6 of these: , , , , , and ," "cross-product" should not be hyphenated, and the cross products should be specified with a before b, e.g., instead of . 7. "MODIFY 18.6 as follows:" should be 18.7. 8. "In Table 18-29, the alignment of the cell bodies in the top three rows is not consistent with the rest of the table. The six inconsistent cells should be modified to match the rest of the table" looks already fixed in Draft 3a. 9. "MODIFY 18.10 as follows:" should be 18.11. 10. "d) If get_coverage or get_inst_coverage are called with two arguments, zero is assigned to both arguments; the numerator and denominator." should be "is called". Yes, I know the mistake is in the existing text. 11. "In consistency with the above behavior, $get_coverage shall return a value of 100.0 if called on a design that has no constructed covergroups, or if called on a design in which all covergroups have a weight of 0." "In consistency with" sounds strange. "Consistent with" sounds better. "$get_coverage" should be "get_coverage()"? What is a "constructed covergroup"? The term does not seem to appear in the LRM. Is there a non-constructed covergroup? If not, why not just 'covergroup'? 12. "MODIFY 18.10.1 as follows:" should ne 8.11.1. 13. "ADD the following text at the very end of 18.10.2:" should be 8.11.2. 14. "In case the denominator of the cross coverage calculation formula has a value of zero:" - Better is "If the denominator ..." 15. "d) If get_coverage or get_inst_coverage are called with two arguments, zero is assigned to both arguments-the numerator and denominator." - should be "is called". David - will update it today. - see his bug note on his response to Shalom. Friendly amendment: From: "design that has no constructed covergroups" To: "design that has no covergroup instances" Move: David - to approve the set of proposed changes for mantis 1655 Second: Ray Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed unanimously 1615 can processes spawned by functions execute blocking statements? svec Approved on October/23/2006 unanimously. - This proposal wanted to add 11.6.1 (in 1800-2005) after 11.6. The text from 11.6 is now in 9.3.2. I don't like 4th level subclauses (9.3.2.1), so I am not sure where and how to place this. - The following sentence seems hard to understand: "Calling a function that executes a fork..join_none block shall be illegal in any context in which a side effect is disallowed or any context other than procedural code originating in an initial block." I think the following would be simpler: "Calling a function that executes a fork..join_none block shall be legal only in procedural code originating in an initial block and illegal in any context in which a side effect is disallowed." (Is there a difference between "originating in an initial block" and "in an initial block"? If so, are readers going to understand the difference?) - Is the following sentence needed: "Implementations shall issue an error either at compile time or run time when they have determined the illegal condition.?" - The function declaration is called start_check, but the function calls start_checks. Dave - disagrees with Shalom's suggestions Gord - the example should be fixed. Neil - 11.6 - was the fork/join section 9.3.2 - is new one Dave - 9.3.2.1 - a dangling 4th level clause Gord - just leave it as a 4th level clause - everyone agreed Mehdi - will fix the example and the section numbers AI/Mehdi - will make the changes Stu - have the Champions review these updates by email if possible. - see if any of them disagree - Prefers to get these updates into draft 4 AI/Neil - Call for an email vote of the Champions for those mantis items that get updated in the next few days. Mehdi - the Champions are going too low-level in their review Gord - the committee doesn't have time to re-review everything. 1612 Timeunits decls don't make sense in class decls (BNF) svec Approved on May 2,2007 unanimously by email vote. Reference to Syntax 7-1 should be 8-1. Footnote 17 should be footnote 16. Mehdi - updated it 8/16 1609 import statements should not be allowed in class scopes svec Approved on June/25/2007 unanimously. 25.2 should be 25.3. Gord updated it 8/20 1605 Clarification of mailbox/semaphore constructor svec Approved on October/23/2006 unanimously. The references should be 15.3.1 and 15.4.1 AI/Mehdi - will update the proposal 1580 Access to interface objects via virtual interface svec Approved on May 2, 2007 unanimously by email vote. - 20.9 should be 24.10. - "Access to all objects declared in an interface is always available by hierarchical reference, regardless of whether the interface is accessed through a port, through a virtual interface, or if there are modports to restrict those access mechanisms." I think "if" should also be "whether". - "When an interface is connected with a modport in either the module header or port connection, access through a port or through a virtual interface is limited to only objects listed in the modport, for only types of objects legal to be listed in a modport (nets, variables, tasks, functions, and clocking blocks). All other objects may be referenced." I find this wording very unclear. It is unclear what "all other objects" refers to, and it is unclear how they may be referenced. - The original text had, "All objects are still visible by hierarchical reference." This seemed to repeat the first sentence, "Access to all objects declared in an interface is always available by hierarchical reference," and if so, to be redundant. Does this proposal intend to change the meaning of the last sentence? - I also find the difference between "module header" and "port connection" unclear, since I think of port connections as part of the module header. Dave - Was updated 8/15 - didn't change the wording since the committee went through several iterations on it. 1556 in-line static variable initialization - require keyword static? svec Approved on June/11/2007 unanimously. Reference is correct. 1545 13.12.1: $urandom example error svec Approved on October/9/2006 unanimously. Mehdi - the section number is wrong Section number is now 17.13.1 AI/Ray - update the section number 1480 method_call_root BNF should use primary, not expression svec Approved on October/9/2006 unanimously. Mehdi - section numbers are ok. 1459 Mailbox 'new' method should never return null svec Approved on September/11/2006 unanimously. Update of July 23 1427 dynamic_array_new svec Approved on April 30, 2007 unanimously. Mehdi - updated on 8/16 1371 Semantic of program block $exit svec Approved on June/25/2007 unanimously. Mehdi - section number is not correct. Gord - there is a change required to the first paragraph. The committee will need to re-vote this one. AI/Mehdi - move it back to feedback 1336 Rules for allowed statements in a function svec Approved on Jan/22/2007. unanimously. Mehdi - flagged issues in his email Gord - just a section number change 888 foreach identifiers are too restrictive svec Approved on October/23/2006 unanimously. Mehdi - flagged issues with section numbers 594 15.8 special syntax for accessing interfaces through clocking block svec Approved on October/9/2006 unanimously. Mehdi - section number problems - Doug updated it 890 Mehdi - Doug sent email that he updated it - we don't know why... It is already in the LRM 5. Discussion on Merged LRM 1800-2008 Draft3 (any updates) Section review list and assignees on the svec site: http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_p1800_2008_Draft3_list.txt 6. Mantis item review 1897 coverage computation David - added a new option - aggregate_by_union - what does get_inst_coverage() return when per_instance is false? - would like to get input from Arturo. Mehdi - could have a possible email vote Francoise - Is aggregate_by_union the opposite of union? David - They can be used together Thinks that coverage by instance is more useful when using aggregate_by_union. Steven - the word union might be confused with the union construct AI/David - send out a couple of examples. Recommendation to close, 737 (placeholder for ballot item 204) Bind for class discussion Mehdi read the statement that we plan to put in this mantis item. "The committee read and considered this feedback. While it has merit, the committee believes it is either not feasible to implement at this time or not in the scope or goals of the P1800 project as it was defined and agreed upon by the 1800 Working Group." Move: Gordon, close mantis 737 using the reason Mehdi read. Second: Mark Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed 737 is closed AI/Mehdi - close mantis item 737 551 Program block interaction with time queues Move: Gord - close mantis 551, as being covered by mantis 890 Second: Jonathan Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed 551 is closed 7. Next meetings: -------------------------- Thursday September 6th 11-1 PST Monday September 17, 2007 Monday October 1, 2007 Monday October 15, 2007