Subject: Minutes of meeting, 8/20/02
From: Yatin Trivedi (trivedi@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 10:48:08 PDT
***************************************************************
Next Meeting: Tuesday 09/03 at 12:00 noon east coast time
Meetings Schedule and Call Info:
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION:
-----------------------
All Participants should use the following information to reach the
conference call:
* PARTICIPANT CODE: 707131
* Toll Free Dial In Number: (877)807-5706
* International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (225)383-8961
SV-CC (08/20/2002)
****************************************************************
Minutes of meeting 08/20
Attendees:
[xxx-] Ghassan Khoory (Synopsys, Co-Chair)
[xxx-] Kevin Cameron (NSC)
[xxx-] Simon Davidmann (Co-Design)
[xx-x] Peter Flake (Co-Design)
[xxxx] Joao Geada (Synopsys)
[x---] Tayung Liu (Novas)
[xxxx] Andrzej Litwiniuk (Synopsys)
[x---] Mike McNamara (Verisity)
[xxx-] Stuart Swan (Cadence)
[--xx] Francoise Martinole (Cadence)
[-xxx] Bassam Tabbara (Novas)
[--xx] Yatin Trivedi (ASIC Group)
[--xx] Michael Rohleder (Motorola)
[--x-] Darryl Parham(Sun)
[---x] Alain Reynaud
------------------------
Summary of all ACTION items from this meeting:
(These items are also listed again in the minutes)
ACTION 1: Yatin to collate all comments and make requirements document
on eda.org under sv-cc area.
ACTION 2: Francoise to check the status and report back by email. She
will also look into the requirements aspects of the donation.
ACTION 3: Discuss this item further, including Kevin and others with C++
usage and experience. Email discussion.
ACTION 4: Yatin to put together a document with Assertions API
Requirements
document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each
request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote.
ACTION 5: Joao to provide clarification on scope of Assertion API.
ACTION 6: Joao to ask Ghassan regarding possibility including Database
API.
Joao is out for two weeks, so most of his action items will be delayed.
ACTION 7: Yatin to put together a document with Covergae API
requirements
document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each
request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote.
ACTION 8: Francoise will provide the new VPI requirements and object
model
proposal by email prior to next conference call (9/3/02).
ACTION 9: Michael Rohleder to lead discussion on this topic and
drive for consensus.
ACTION 10: Ask Peter or Co-design representative in subsequent meetings.
ACTION 11: This needs further discussion by email.
------------------------
Minutes of the meeting:
- Andrzej proposed acceptance of the minutes of the meeting of 8/6/02.
It was approved unanimously.
- Yatin complimented everyone for participation and discussion via email
and encouraged to do more.
- Michael suggested that a "living document" be made of all the
requirements and post it on eda.org website; make past versions
accessible
ACTION 1: Yatin to collate all comments and make requirements document
on eda.org under sv-cc area.
- Yatin mentioned SV full committee meeting 8/28 and a face-to-face
meeting during week of 9/16 or 9/23 in San Jose, as forwarded in email.
All are encouraged to attend.
- Vassilios' email regarding "Donations Deadline" mentions September 15.
Yatin suggested that the donations include both requirements and
proposals
similar to problem and solution pair.
- Francoise mentioned that Cadence donation is currently with the legal
group.
ACTION 2: Francoise to check the status and report back by email. She
will also look into the requirements aspects of the donation.
- Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Global
Requirements
for all APIs". An email was sent on 8/14 and subsequently discussed
through emails.
- Based on Kevin's email, Joao asked whether the API compatibility
should
be maintained at source level or object level? This decision may have
implications on C++ support.
ACTION 3: Discuss this item further, including Kevin and others with C++
usage and experience. Email discussion.
- Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Assertions API
requirements". An email was sent on 8/14/02 and subsequently discussed
with some comments from Bassam. There was no apparent disagreement about
the requirements, so a document should be put together to formally start
the collection of assertions requirements.
ACTION 4: Yatin to put together a document with Assertions API
Requirements
document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each
request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote.
- Question was raised (by Alain?) whether Assertion API is being defined
for simulation tools only or model checkers as well? It was discussed
and
suggested that the scope of the assertion API be clearified. Such
explanation should be included in the Requirements document.
ACTION 5: Joao to provide clarification on scope of Assertion API.
- Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Coverage API
requirements" An email was sent on 8/16/02 and subsequently discussed
in form of comments from various people.
- Alain asked whether the coverage API is being defined only for
simulation
tools or can it be used by post-processing tools?
Joao indicated that he current proposal is for single simulation
coverage
only (though simulator could read previously collected data, it can be
presented only in aggregate form through API). There can be a Database
API,
but that is not part of the proposal Synopsys has presented.
ACTION 6: Joao to ask Ghassan regarding possibility including Database
API.
Joao is out for two weeks, so most of his action items will be delayed.
- Covergae API requirements are ready to be put in a document form.
ACTION 7: Yatin to put together a document with Covergae API
requirements
document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each
request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote.
- Francoise has not put VPI requirements and proposal together yet.
ACTION 8: Francoise will provide the new VPI requirements and object
model
proposal by email prior to next conference call (9/3/02).
- Further discussion on Global Requirements:
* Object code compatibility vs source code compatibility
* PLI is not object code compatible between platforms, simulators
and versions of the same simulator
* Advantage of object code compatibility is that there is no
need to recompile. Support of legacy applications is
a lot easier
* Disadvantage: Makes it difficult to support C++
* There were some issues with compatibilit between versions of
g++ compiler.
* Everyone seem to accept the intent on the committee's part to
establish object code compatibility by defining C API
ACTION 9: Michael Rohleder to lead discussion on this topic and
drive for consensus.
- Peter was asked about a follow-up to Co-design's intent to donate API
proposals. He was not in a position to make a statement if or when the
donations may be made.
ACTION 10: Ask Peter or Co-design representative in subsequent meetings.
- Issue of dealing with user defined types and API was discussed.
Current API proposals deal with primitive types only. How do we deal
with complex types such as pointers?
ACTION 11: This needs further discussion by email.
- Francoise asked how the requirements submission and proposals
submission
related? Yatin clarified that proposals are meant to be solutions to
some
problems. The requirements are the problem statements. Not every
proposal
must be submitted with the requirements. Some of the submitted
requirements
that the committee is looking at now may be the same, so there is no
need
to submit those requiremetns again, though identifying those
requirements
to set the context for each proposal will be useful. However, previously
unspecified/unknown requirements should accompany the proposal.
Meeting adjourned at 1:05pm EST.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Aug 21 2002 - 11:07:06 PDT