Subject: meeting reminder, 9/3/02
From: Yatin Trivedi (trivedi@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 08:33:04 PDT
Meeting reminder with last meeting's minutes.
See you on the call tomorrow.
Regards
Yatin
Yatin Trivedi wrote:
>
> ***************************************************************
>
> 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 : Mon Sep 02 2002 - 08:25:41 PDT