Subject: Draft minutes for todays call.
From: Michael Rohleder (michael.rohleder@motorola.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 10:51:36 PST
Please send any corrections and additions to Swapanjit and me. I will make the corrections tomorrow morning (which is today night for everybody else) and redistribute.
-Michael
Meeting minutes for the SV-CC Committee
November 19, 2002, 9:00-10:00am PST
Attendees:
John Amouroux (Mentor)
Kevin Cameron (National Semi)
Joe Daniels (???)
Joao Geada (Synopsys)
Ghassan Khoory (Synopsys)
Andrzej Litwiniuk (Synopsys)
Francoise Martinole (Cadence)
Swapanjit Mittra (SGI)
Michael Rohleder (Motorola)
John Stickley (Mentor)
Doug Warmke (Mentor)
Rolling attendance list:
[--xxxxxxx--] Yatin Trivedi (ASIC Group, Chair)
[-----xxx-x-] Tarak Parikh (@HDL)
[--xx-xxxxxx] Francoise Martinole (Cadence)
[xxx--xxxxx-] Stuart Swan (Cadence)
[------xxxxx] John Amouroux (Mentor)
[------x--x-] Emerald Holzwarth (Mentor)
[-----xxxxxx] John Stickley (Mentor)
[------xxx-x] Doug Warmke (Mentor)
[--xx-xxxxxx] Michael Rohleder (Motorola)
[xxx-xxxxx-x] Kevin Cameron (National Semi)
[x----------] Tayung Liu (Novas)
[-xxxx-xxxx-] Bassam Tabbara (Novas)
[-----xxxxxx] Swapnajit Mittra (SGI)
[--x----xx--] Darryl Parham (Sun)
[xxx-x------] Simon Davidmann (Synopsys)
[xx-xx------] Peter Flake (Synopsys)
[xxxxxxxxxxx] Joao Geada (Synopsys)
[xxx-xxxxxxx] Ghassan Khoory (Synopsys, Co-Chair)
[xxxxx-xxxxx] Andrzej Litwiniuk (Synopsys)
[---x-xxxx--] Alain Reynaud (Tensilica)
[x-----xxx--] Mike McNamara (Verisity)
[-----------] Joe Daniels
The only topic of this call was - due to the limited time - to revisit Andrzej's 17 items for clarification items that were not resolved during 11/07 face-to-face meeting.
THERE WAS AGREEMENT THAT THERE WILL BE SECOND CALL TOMORROW (same time) TO CONTINUE WITH THE AGENDA.
[NOTES:
a: I'm sorry, I missed the very first minutes, because Swapnajit did not ask me earlier to take the minutes.
b: Also sorry for not covering all discussions in full depth, it is hard to identify when more than one person is speaking, especially on a bad line.
c: there was no mention of the minutes from the previous call? I also have no such minutes received until now??? - Michael]
Andrzej started to go through his revised 17 items:
IMPORTANT:
After item (2) Joe Daniels requested to vote on this proposal. Swapnajit proposed to vote on this proposal by email until Friday to make sure we have all logistics properly covered. He will provide the voting information soon. There was agreement by
everybody to do this vote as suggested by Swapnajit.
(0) [Agreement unclear to me - sorry Michael]
Andrzej explained why
- It is irrelevant for the SystemVerilog side whether there is pass-by-value or pass-by-reference
- Semantics of interface should be fully transparent to SystemVerilog
Michael: This part of the proposal just looks from the SystemVerilog side to the API ?
Joao: Do we need to discuss this again? It has already been accepted in the face-to-face meeting?
Francoise: There was a lifely discussion, there was nothing accepted
Swapnajit: We decided to ask for clarification on some items, for some we reached resolution.
(1) Agreed by all attending persons
(2) There was a lively discussion, but no agreement was reached by the attending persons
Doug: Why is this restriction needed?
Joao: Required to assert appropriate simulation semantics
Doug: This is completely locking out any simulator that permits this
Michael: Is 'passing 0 simulation time not too fuzzy? Think about delta delays in VHDL ...'
Joao: May be ... But this should be sufficiently clear from reading the proposal
... <some lifely discussion I was not able to capture all>
Joao We may extend it later. Let's please have a foundation. We should not go around in circles.
Doug: Want to have the ability to later expand this. So there is a partial agreement, as long as we are not locking out later extensions.
... <some lifely discussion I was not able to capture all>
(3) Agreed by all attending persons
(4) Agreed by all attending persons
Francoise: What is an exported variable?
Andrzej: Anything that could be exported
Francoise: Is this currently specified in SV?
Andrzej: This is in C-Blend, and this is just in case something like this gets defined. We may have to specify that those exported variables must be specially declared
Michael: Do we need to define items that are not yet in SV 3.0?
Joao: Strike 4c out and leave 4a and 4b
Joe D.: everything has to assume SV at the time we put that stuff into the LRM
Decision was to have only 4a and 4b???
(5) Agreed by all attending persons
(6) Agreed by all attending persons
Decision: $root scope is the only possible scope, no local scopes are permitted
(7) Agreed by all attending persons
Michael: Request to clarify which option to take.
John S.: Let go for the exact match. This is clearer and it is no real restriction.
Decision was to require an exact match of a declarations
(8) Agreed by all attending persons
(9) Agreed by all attending persons
Joao: Has this been passed to the basic committee already?
Swapanjit: Yes
(10) Agreed by all attending persons
(11) Agreed by all attending persons
Joao: 'string' has already been included by the ec-committee
(11) Agreed by all attending persons
Joao: This proposal also have to go to the ec-committee, strings are already in.
Kevin: Could we not just use a 64 bit integer value
Andrzej, Joao: No, this would have a different semantics
... <some lifely discussion I was not able to capture all>
Swapanjit asked for deferring this to email discussion, due to time limitation
Swapanjit terminated the meeting and the remaining 5 items, because we ran out of time.
Joe asked for a second call tomorrow same time to continue with the agenda.
There was agreement on this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 19 2002 - 10:52:05 PST