SV-EC Committee Meeting Monday August 28 2006 11:00am - 1:00pm PST [Minutes distributed for approval at next (sv-ec) committee meeting] (12) Day (48) (00) Month (88) (00) Year (66) --------- Attendees ---------- (-A) Arturo Salz (--) Cliff Cummings (AA) Dave Rich (AA) Francoise Martinolle (-A) Mehdi Mohtashemi (AA) Neil Korpusik (AA) Ray Ryan (--) Surrendra Dudani (AA) Gordon Vreugdenhil (AA) Steven Sharp (--) Phil Moorby (--) Doug Warmke (AA) Stu Sutherland (-A) Heath Chambers (-A) Don Mills (NOTE: 2nd of 3 meeting for voting rights) ** Minutes taken by Neil Korpusik and Mehdi Mohtashemi ////////////////// Aug 28th 2006 ///////////////////////// Agenda: 1. IEEE patent policy ref: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Dave - Assume that the patent policy was read Second: Steven Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 2. Review Meeting minutes, of and August 14th 2006 http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_August_14_2006_Minutes.txt Move: Dave - Approve the minutes of Aug 14, 2006 Second: Gord Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 3. Action items review Action items: August 14th, 2006 ----------------------------- [DONE] AI: 978 Neil - Copy info on with-expression to sorting section (see locator methods) - Update find, find_index, unique, unique_index -- update all 4 of these in the same way, as far as the ordering of the results are concerned. "The ordering of returned elements is unrelated to the ordering of the original array." - change - "syntax error" to "Shall be illegal" - change Gord's example to not require casting and then use a cast in last example instead. Mention "overflow" in the text describing the need for the cast. [DONE] AI: 1038 Neil - Close mantis item 1038. Add a bugnote explaining why. [DONE] AI: 1330 Dave - will upload a new proposal. From Previous meetings: AI: 1437 Dave - update 1437, also include a proposal AI: 890 Cliff and all - send email on the reflector to get the discussion started AI: 1330 Gord - new language proposal to handle the port connection issues. AI: 1330 Dave - examples via email on the issue with ports in interfaces new item: AI/Mehdi - update status on approved/closed mantis items from August 14th and August 28th. 4. Name Resolution sub-group update ------------------------------------ Gord is owner from sv-bc, provided a summary of activities. - There are 5 members along with a few additional observers. - A proposal will go to both the svbc and svec. - Gord sent out a summary that is being used as a basis for making progress. - The final outcome will be a name resolution algorithm. - Any issues of substance will go to the committees first. - Want to come to closure quickly. 5. Review mantis item list. [see below] ----------------------------------------- 978 5.15 array methods, minor errata (Shalom/Neil) [see 1270] Arturo - find, find_index - should retain the original order Neil - the traversal order is specified to be undefined Arturo - associative arrays do have an order specified. See 5.9. - originally added the statement about traversing in an unspecified order to account for side effects. Gord - least to greatest or left to right, which one? could have the following ranges 9:0, 0:9 first - is what? Arturo - left to right, except for associative array (smallest to largest) Steven - should be consistent for all traversal methods. - when only specify a number for the range (is defined as 0:size-1) Stu - $readmem() works from min to max Dave - wants them to match foreach (left to right) Stu - can agree with that Steven - The new wording for unique now seems to change the behavior from what he originally assumed. The fist sentence seems to be inconsistent with the second sentence. Arturo - the new sentence is more explicit and more correct. Note: Some suggestions on how to reword the unique() section were made. AI/Neil: find_index and unique_index try for description, Neil took an action item to redo the sections on unique, unique_index Arturo - original array elements always returned, even if have a with clause - the text says that already Gord - what if have a slice of a string - sum uses the results of the expression evaluation - using a with clause could possibly get duplicates returned? Arturo - This only seems possible if there are side effects. Gord - Collect up with expression values and at same time collect up the results - page 4, example of 2-d array - this is how you reduce a whole array - Last page - last example Do we even need to ask about higher order dimensions? Steven - thinks this example doesn't work Gord - should use nested foreach instead of find() Steven - there is no way to return a 2-d array of original elements. Neil - also couldn't figure out how to get this example to work. Arturo - returns a queue of 1d arrays - the example just doesn't work... - reduction methods were originally used in constraints Gord - when would it be useful to have an argument value other than 1 for index()? - does the dimension argument make any sense? Arturo - last example was to model a two-level foreach. Gord - if we come up with a new conclusion we then need to re-address the concept of array iterators. Wants there to be only one model that is consistent. Can have user write their own foreach for other cases. Today we are using the one-dimensional model, which seems to hold together along with constraints. Arturo - locator methods is the only place where we should consider operating on multiple dimensions. Steven - what does find_first mean for a multi-dimensional array? Gord - wants to stay in the one-dimensional world. Ray - what about find_index() - what return for m-d arrays? Arturo - that was Shalom's original question. - two foreach inside of each other, would return a flattened queue Heath - if works on 1-d that would be more straight-forward - would most likely be used more Ray - can't write-your-own in a constraint Arturo - there is a foreach capability in the constraints today Gord - does anyone object to the 1-d model? Arturo - makes sense Steven - prefers to have consistency - for a constraint want a find to return true/false. Neil - A.8.2 will also need to be updated (array_manipulation_call) - could hold off until we deal with 1480 Neil - for array reduction methods we added text mentioning that they are only allowed for arrays of integral values. When a with clause is specified doesn't this allow non-integral arrays to be operated on? Steven - yes, the example of sum() that we added relies on this Friendly amendments: - find, find_index - Take out sentence about "The ordering of the returned elements is unrelated..." - take out mem, mem2 from last example Move: Steve - approve mantis 978 (proposal 978.8) with 2 friendly amendments [will make it into 978.9 proposal] Second: Gord Abstain: none Opposed: none passed Noted in minutes: 5.15.4, still needs to be changed. Further follow-up: (mantis 978) ------------------------------ AI/Neil - rewrite unique(), the first 2 sentences appear to be contradictory. - Make sure that it is clear that array elements are returned. - Add some examples for unique(). AI/Neil - Array reduction methods can operate on arrays of non-integral values when a with clause is specified, as long as the type of the expression is an integral value. AI/Gord - re-write section 5.15.4 - only the default argument value makes sense. AI/Dave - what order is used for find and find_index (e.g. traversal is left to right of the bounds, associative is min to max) - 5.15.1 - change last sentence in first paragraph. AI/All - can anyone come up with a realistic example? (last example 5.15.4) - not only where you would need it but also what does it mean. Other mantis items related to mantis 978: 1087 - How do array manipulation methods work with multi-D arrays? (Shalom) 1437 - Prototype syntax for array locator methods in 5.15.1 is not legal (similar to 0082 in the svbc) - Just need to remove the prototype (not needed), text is already ok. AI/Dave - post a proposal. Vote at next meeting. 1480 - method_call_root BNF should use primary, not expression (Brad) 1490 - Array ordering methods on associative arrays (Dave) Neil - now that we have approved 978 we can go ahead and close 1490 since the change made in 1490 is also contained in 978. Move: Dave - move that we close 1490 as a duplicate of 978 Second: Stu Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 1517 - Array reduction methods used in constraints (Dave) 511 - related to section 12.25 (Francoise) Mehdi - FM added a bugnote that this one could be closed. Move: Stu - move that we close 511 second: Steven Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 1330 Missing BNF for parameterized virtual interfaces (Dave) [1324 is duplicate -- can be closed if above approved] Arturo - wanted to have another line added to the example (after V8). Dave - added it to the proposal during the meeting. Steven - A virtual interface declaration may select a modport of an interface, in which case the modport is also part of its type, Move: Dave - approve the proposal for mantis 1330, 1330_pvi.pdf Second: Steven Abstain: none Opposed: none passed move: Steven close 1324 as a duplicate of 1330 Second: Dave Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 6. Next meeting: Proposal: September 11, 2006 ========== ADDITION TO the minutes, not part of regular ========= ========== meeting discussions, informational purposes ========= ========== Action Items updated based on August 14th, 2006 ==== Action items: August 28, 2006 ------------------------- AI: general: Mehdi - update status on approved/closed mantis items from August 14th and August 28th. AI: follow-up to mantis 978 Neil - rewrite unique(), the first 2 sentences appear to be contradictory. - Make sure that it is clear that array elements are returned. - Add some examples for unique(). Neil - Array reduction methods can operate on arrays of non-integral values when a with clause is specified, as long as the type of the expression is an integral value. Gord - re-write section 5.15.4 - only the default argument value makes sense. Dave - what order is used for find and find_index (e.g. traversal is left to right of the bounds, associative is min to max) - 5.15.1 - change last sentence in first paragraph. All - can anyone come up with a realistic example? (last example 5.15.4) - not only where you would need it but also what does it mean. AI: 1437: Dave, post a proposal.