SV-EC Committee Meeting Monday July 23 2007 11:00am - 1:00pm PST With the new calculations for voting rights below... 3/4 rule = 0.75 * 24 = 18 Meeting number: -------------- 000000000000000000000000 000000000111111111122222 123456789012345678901234 Meeting Days: ------------- (121202020102020101311202) Day (481593604882505956041593) (000011111100000000000000) Month (889900112211223344456677) (000000000000000000000000) Year (666666666677777777777777) ------ Attendees --------- (-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAAA-) Arturo Salz 21 (--AAA-AAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAA) Cliff Cummings 20 (AAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) Dave Rich 23 (AA-A-AAA-AAAAAAA---AAAAA) Francoise Martinolle 18 (-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAA) Mehdi Mohtashemi 22 (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-A) Neil Korpusik 23 (AAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAA) Ray Ryan 23 (AAAAAAAAAAAA-AAA---AAA-A) Gordon Vreugdenhil 19 (AAAAAA--AAAAA-A--AAAAAAA) Steven Sharp 19 (--AAAA-A----------------) Phil Moorby 05 - No voting rights (---AA-AAA-AAAA-AA-A-----) Doug Warmke 12 - No voting rights (AAAAAAA---AA-A-AAAAAAA--) Stu Sutherland 17 - No voting rights (-AAAA--AAAA-A-AAAAA-AAAA) Heath Chambers 18 (-AAAAAA-A----AAAAAAAAA--) Don Mills 16 - No voting rights 7/23/07 (--AA--A---A-AAA--A-AAAA-) Jonathan Bromley 12 (--A---------------------) Logie Ramachandran 01 - No voting rights (----AAA-----------------) Melvin Cardoza 03 - No voting rights (-----A-AAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAA) Mark Hartoog 17 (-------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-AAA) Mike Mintz 07 (------------------AAAAAA) Geoffrey Coram 06 (-------------------AAAAA) David Scott - Mentor 05 on 7/23/2007 14 people (other than the chair) currently have voting rights ** Minutes taken by Neil Korpusik and Mehdi Mothashemi ////////////////// July 23, 2007 ///////////////////////// 1. Review IEEE patent policy ------------------------ ref: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Cliff - 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_July_9_2007_Minutes.txt Move: Cliff - approve meeting minutes of July 9th 2007 Second: Heath Abstain: Gordon, Neil, Opposed: none Passed 3. P1800 wg meeting on july 12th (updates) Neil: Stu has not made any changes 3.1A update, champions are reviewing mantis items The next set of changes will be after the P1800 reviews output from the champions. Funding - all payments have been received for this year. One old mantis item was closed without justification by the svec mantis item 737 - needs to be revisited. - binding classes April 5, 2005 voted as not feasible Mehdi: will add it to today's agenda. Neil: Features changes is November 15th. for the october draft, August 1st. The current schedule Aug 1, committee freeze for October draft Aug 15, champions meeting Aug 30, P1800 review of champions meeting(s) Nov 15, committee feature freeze Nov 30, champions meeting Dec 13, P1800 meeting March 30 thru April 30 - ballot period May 15 thru June 15 - committees respond to ballot feedback July 30 - recirculation ballot Sept 30 approval 4. 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 4a. Are approved proposals modified for merged LRM draft? Neil: Most people don't know... Dave: 1736 just updated. - The Feedback state is where they should be placed. - 1736 - was brought up to date with draft 3a Neil - text changes need to be revoted. If just section numbers are updated don't need to be voted We expect most of the svec mantis items to only require section number changes. AI/Mehdi - move those to feedback that still need to be aligned with draft 3a Champions meetings 7/26 8/8 8/15 5. Review mantis items with proposals 1707, 1384 streaming operator 1707 7/13 streaming reference algorithm - updated for draft 3a? Mehdi - Jonathan isn't available today 1384 streaming operator 1608, 1594 type matching of class handles 1608 7/9 - equality operator Francoise: -hasn't updated the proposal yet 1594 type matching of class handles - no proposal 1715 triggered method of clocking block Jonathan and arturo are the main players - not online today Francoise: at last meeting he thought it might not be needed 1871 coverage - section 18.5.4 and 18.5.5 David - cleaned up the language quite a bit, but the intent is the same. - In Cuesta they didn't know what to do for this case Steven - didn't have any input Neil - seems to be just clarifying things Move: David - approve 1871 with the latest proposal. Second: Cliff Abstain: None Opposed: none Passed 1871 approved unanimously. Cliff: coverpoint, covergroups, extending classes questions extending a covergroup within a class if the class is extended. small modification to the covergroup rather than copying. Gordon: embedded covergroup have some limitations, it maybe valuable, unless there is a truely compelling reason, we would wait. There are possible name issues that need to be done in lock-step with such a change. 1927 18.5.4 Specifying bins for transitions David - transition bins Neil - the section number should be 18.5.1 - just a clarification? David - yes, they didn't know what to do in this case. Move: David - approve 1927 with the latest proposal. Second: Cliff Abstain: None Opposed: none Passed 1927 approved unanimously. 1928 coverage, enum evaluation 18.5.6 Gordon: enum tags required. when doing a comparison you end up with an implicit assign The intent is to clarify a weird edge case. Coverpoint of an enum bins of 1, 2, 3 You would have problems. Normally in an expression with enums In assigns the type is strictly enforced. If type expression of one is an enum and other isn't you would have a problem due to the implicit assignment. Move: David Scott - approve 1928 with the latest proposal. Second: Gordon Abstain: None Opposed: none Passed 1928 approved unanimously. 1500: Forward tyepdeff Dave: some consensus not to do this, restrict typedef in classes. Gord: you can not extend an incomplete forward typedef, AI: Dave, the resolution is to come up with new proposal, will re-write the proposal to be less restrictive. 1857 : extern class - Gord - July 2 proposal Gord: did not receive any comments on the proposal since it was placed. Neil: would like to place this for email vote. Francoise: changing the syntax was not required, Gord: depends on how the implementation is, combination of imports, and what names are visible, it could become very messy. AI: Mehdi setup eamil vote 1858 name-binding in line constraints 17.7 Gord - there are still a lot of things up in the air for name resolution. Waiting for a proposal from Mark and Arturo. - If allow 'item', it will resolve to the target object. Doesn't change the current LRM meaning of unadorned names. Mehdi - item is not a keyword Gord - we need to make some progress on these issues. This is only dealing with one small part of the name resolution issues. Mark - hopes to have a strawman proposal for the next meeting. Gord - let's table 1858 for now and wait for the strawman proposal. - has sent out a set of rules for name resolution Cadence basically agreed but Mark didn't. Now waiting for Mark and Arturo to put together a writeup. AI/Mark and Arturo - name resolution issues. Gord - 7/25 through 8/4 or 8/5 - will be out Mehdi - Arturo to be back late this week. 737: AI: find the comments and close it [leave for next time] 1897: clarify "union of all significant bins" and "overlapping bins" in coverage computation David - Arturo objected to this proposal. Seemed to object to merging of coverage across objects but the LRM seems to allow this. Arturo also mentioned that crosses weren't addressed. - how calculate coverage of parameterized covergroup? - If both covered then can get 100%. - when parameterize autobin max constructor parameters on RHS of a bin declaration could get different numbers of bins per instance How calculate type cvg for cases like these? - Proposal - merge bins with the same names. What are the bin names? There is one case that is unclear. Need to look at several sections of LRM to determine the naming rules for bins. The examples need to be examined to determine these rules. Names will show up in reports. - coverage aggregation algorithms - there are a lot of ways to do this. what return for get_coverage()? Mehdi - what about illegal and ignore bins? David - They don't count towards cvg, but they can empty cvg bins Ray - two instances - and want a merged set Simple way to do this is to merge cvg for common named items. Gord - would like to get a detailed analysis for objections. AI/Mehdi - email vote for this item 737 bind for classes old mantis item Gord - there might be another way to accomplish what was intended without using the dynamic bind concept. - They may want to do something similar to aspect oriented programming. - At the very least we would need a lot more clarification. Probably not doable in this round of changes. Mehdi - we can vote on it next time, after we determine the formal language to use. AI/Neil - what is the specific language that we used to use for items like this. 6. Discussion: mantis items with no proposal 7. Next meetings: August 6th 2007 Monday 11:00-1:00pm. August 20 2007