SV-EC Committee Meeting Monday March 13, 2006 11:00am - 1:00pm PST [Minutes distributed for approval at next (sv-ec) committee meeting] (10211 ) Day (99333 ) (10000 ) Month (21123 ) (00000 ) Year (56666 ) --------- Attendees ---------- (AAAAA ) Arturo Salz (-AAA- ) Cliff Cummings (A-AAA ) Dave Rich (AAAAA ) Francoise Martinolle (AAAAA ) Mehdi Mohtashemi (AAAAA ) Neil Korpusik (AAAAA ) Ray Ryan (--AAA ) Surrendra Dudani (-AAAA ) Gordon Vreugdenhil (-A--A ) Phil Moorby (AA--- ) Doug Warmke (Aa--- ) Chris Spear (---AA ) Stu Sutherland (----A ) Steven Sharp (----- ) Brad Pierce (----- ) Karen Pieper ^^------------ Considered ONE MEETING. ** Minutes taken by Neil Korpusik and Mehdi Mohtashemi ////////////////// March 13, 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: Arturo Abstain: none Opposed: none passed 2) Review Meeting minutes, of Feb 13th, 2006 meeting http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_Feb_13_2006_Minutes.txt Move: Neil - Approve minutes February 13, 2006 Second: Dave Abstain: none Opposed: none approved 3) P1800 feb 21st meeting update Neil: not much, merge of 2 LRM passed unanimously, study group has been formed to do next PAR. 6 members, 3 users, ibm,sun,intel, mentor, cadence, synopsys. expected to be completed fairly quickly. Stu: to get a budgeted funding. work start as soon as possible Neil: operating procedures, to AI: to review and discuss with Karen, and bring it to committee Neil: A sub-committee has been formed to come up with a PAR for our activities. It is assumed that it won't take very long to get the PAR completed. 4) Action items review: from Jan 9/23, and Feb 13 Review for next time as well. AI: Mehdi ask Karen about the new state for the editor to view. 5) Continue/Discussion on mantis issues: ------------------------------------- Mantis item 714: Motion: Dave - approve the new proposal that was posted for Mantis 714. Second: Arturo Oppose: none Abstain: none Passed unanimously Approved Mantis item 1325 from sv-ac SV-AC has requested discussion and clarification from sv-ec. [I will forward the email to the sv-ec reflector]. 1325: clarification for items declared in unnamed clocking blocks. Neil - it seems that the only place where an unnamed clocking block would be useful would be for the default clocking block. Stu - agrees Arturo - what if assert is in the clocking block? Dave - assert is not allowed inside of a clocking block. Arturo - default clocking was one use of an unnamed clocking block. He thought there was also another use. Surrendra - the original intent was for assert. But that would have created executable code inside the clocking block. Mehdi - unnamed clocking blocks only allowed for default clocking blocks? Gordon - should just say that unnamed clocking blocks are not referencable. Even though it wouldn't be useful to put properties and sequences in there. There was a situation in 2001 where making something illegal had to be redone. There was agreement to add a statement that: "Properites and sequences in unnamed clocking blocks can not be referenced." This would make it similar to unnamed generate blocks. There should also be the following statement: "Only default clocking blocks can be unnamed." Sub-clause 20.4.5 has an example where the interface modport specifies the name of the clocking block. AI: Neil - send input to the SVAC on our feedback. Arguments to "randomize()" method calls email threads. Gordon requested that we discuss this next. Gordon - randomize() is a non-overridable method today. - wants to make randomize a new keyword This would only allow the following accesses std::randomize() or the one from builtin methods Gives the compilers enough hooks to know what is going on. Different way to pass actuals to randomize() than other methods. Ray - current LRM says that actual arguments be simple names. Ray was suggesting to use a hierarchical form where they refereence the class instance. x.randomize(x.a, x.b); Gordon was fine with this, but notes that there is a backward compatibility issue. - randomizing a field of a class ok, can't randomize a subfield of an embedded object today. Steven - likes the idea to make the actuals expressions, like others are today Gordon - good fallout from Ray's proposal is with respect to visibility of properites (protected, local). Within a method you would be able to reference properties directly (implicit this handle). Dave - no tie-in with constraints when use this. Arturo - this feature was added to allow randomizing values that are not part of a class. There is already plenty of flexibility for class members. Gordon - need to send out to other reflectors? To give them a heads up. There was general agreement from the committee on this point. AI:Gordon - create a mantis item for this. Mantis item: 892 BNF for virtual interface does not include a modport (assigned) Dave - BNF change for A.2.9 Adds modport_identifier to virtual_interface_declaration Gordon - Syntax box 20-3 should also be modified. In sub-clause 20.8 Arturo - A.2.2.1 Net and variable types data_type specification. p519 Shouldn't this have the same change? Gordon - wonders if modport_indentifer is required at all. Arturo - section 20.8, p373 has an example of a virtual port. Gordon - wants to close the current Mantis and consider opening a new one for the "triple" specifier. Motion: Dave - approve the proposal for mantis 892, with the friendly ammendment (syntax box 20-3 in section 20.8). Second: Gordon Oppose: none Abstain: none approved Mantis 1242: nested class access rights (assigned) section 7.21 Dave - copied this proposal from C++. Gordon - wants to ensure that access to local properties is not allowed by going through an inner class using :: Francoise - "non-qualified access" appears to be a new term. A search of the LRM turned up several places where it is used (un-qualified that is). Dave - willing to change it to un-qualified. Gordon - inner class method has same access as a method would in the outer class. Arturo - already covered by 7.21? Motion: Dave - approve the proposal for mantis 1242, with the friendly ammendment (non-qualified to un-qualified). Second: Gordon Oppose: none Abstain: Stu - doesn't understand the full scope of the issue. Passed approved Mantis 1243: events after final block (assigned) Gordon - can't interleave execution of final blocks. Dave - should execute in a sequential order. Arturo - the language seems to be a bit too constraining. Gordon - for initial blocks you can switch from one to another. Each final block executes atomically? - "... as a series of function calls from a single process" Arturo - "... arbitrary sequential order" Steven - Even different versions of a similator or different switches can affect the ordering. - want to allow final blocks to write to variables (creates an event). - is the pli allowed to execute any events? - what about pli callbacks? (a separte issue) Stu - PLI execution executes in 0-time. Any events won't get executed. Motion: Dave - accept the proposal for 1243 Second: Stu Oppose: none Abstain: Passed unanimously approved Mantis 1244: semaphore prototype, function (assigned) Francoise - page 553. annex b, - the text below the prototype in 14.2.2 has the word task in it. It will also need to be changed to function. Motion: Dave - accept the proposal for 1244 (Francoise's change proposal was added) Second: Arturo Opposed: none Abstain: none Passed unanimously approved Mantis 1263 string methods (assigned) - should be tasks Dave - several string methods should be functions, not tasks Neil - 4.7.2 putc() should also be a function Francoise - 4.7.15 realtoa() should also be a function Motion: Dave - accept the proposal for 1263 (it was updated in the meeting) Second: Neil Oppose: none Abstain: none Passed unanimously Approved Mantis 1306: foreach in unpacked arrays Dave - also iterates over a packed array. - using a syntax similar to default argument types. Stu - strike first sentence of second paragraph. AI:Dave - redo the proposal for next time. 1323 - is in svbc (not svec) 1330 - virtual interfaces - email discussion, followed by email discussion. AI: Dave - try to add an example to proposal. 6) Next meeting, March 27th Monday, 11:00am-1:00pm ========================================================================= ================== Action Items ============================ Action items: March 13, 2006 AI: 1325 - (sv-ac) Neil to send input to the SVAC on sv-ec feedback AI: new item - Gordon to create a new mantis item for randomize() method call item AI: 1306 Dave - redo the proposal for next time AI: 1330 Dave add example to the proposal AI: Mehdi ask Karen about the new state for the editor to view. Action items: February 13, 2006 AI: 714 Neil to close, Mehdi to find out about which state it needs to have 714 to be added into the LRM. AI: 1236 Ray - add in the text change for gc-->cg for this mantis AI: 1237 Ray to update with friendly amendment AI: 1239 Ray to make the updates to the proposal. AI: 253 Gord to close the mantis AI: 138 Mehdi move this into enahancement AI: 1279 create some proposals on these issues. Send out some ideas for discussion. Create a few examples for discussion AI: 1313 Gord to put the proposal for bin expression AI: 1178 Mehdi to close this mantis AI: 1308 Dave to update the proposal AI: Ray - add a new Mantis item for the visibility issue. Action items: January 9, 2006, January 23, 2006 AI: 683 Gord to close AI: 712 Gord to close AI: 725 Gord to close AI: 1236 Ray to update the proposal with friendly amendment AI: 1237 Ray to create the proposal, to be discussed later on and voted on in the next meetings AI: Gord to create mantis item for type expressions, comparisons in covergroup AI: 1238 Ray to close (and merge) with 1237 once the proposal is there AI: 1239 Ray & Gord to place a new proposal based on 1/23/06 discussions AI: 1240 Ray; update with clarifications for what has affects. AI: 714 Neil, re-open, make the corrections in the proposal