[sv-cc] Meeting minutes for 05/09/2007

Minutes of 05/09/2007 SV-CC Meeting.

ATTENDEES
0000000000000000000
7777777777666666666
0000000000111110000
5443322111221009988
0212121310200212131
9518484173068517306
-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxx Charles Dawson
xxxx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxx Ralph Duncan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Jim Vellenga
xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x-xxx Andrzej Litwiniuk
xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxxxx Abigail Moorhouse
xxxx-xxxx--xxxxxx-x Michael Rohleder
xxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx Chuck Berking
xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxx Bassam Tabbara
xxx-xx-xx-x-xxxxxxx Francoise Martinolle
xxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx- Ghassan Khoory
-----xx----------- Steve Dovich
x--x--xxxx----xx-xx Amit Kohli
---x--------------- Stu Sutherland
-x----------------- Gord Vreugdenhil

1.  Reviewed Patent information.

   - Ghassan reviewed the patent information.

2.  Reviewed minutes of the 04/25/2007 Meeting.
     - Chuck/Ralph.  ACCEPTED

    Reviewed minutes of the 04/30/2007 face-to-face Meeting.
     - Jim/Chuck.  ACCEPTED

    Reviewed minutes of the 05/01/2007 face-to-face Meeting.
     - Jim/Chuck.  ACCEPTED

3.  Liaisons
   - Ghassan mentioned that draft 3 of merged LRM is available
   - Francoise has no other meetings to report.
   - No other meetings to report on.


4.  New business

- Drop the term 'memory'?

Background for this item is from actions being considered by sv-bc as
reported by Francoise. Ralph mentioned that packed arrays include
memories. Discussion on distinction between removing all instances of
the work 'memory' vs. deprecating VPI impacted. Still need to use memory
as reference to other aspects in LRM. Francoise was concerned about
backward compatibility. Jim asked about definition of 'memory'. Abi's
definition is one dimensional array of regs which lines up with HW use.
Discussion/attempt to define in dynamic vs. static sense. Jim suggested
that relationship and property of definition must fit 1364-2005. Michael
mentioned that he is not a big user of memory but need to be careful in
changing VPI (as PLI is already deprecated). Francoise suggested getting
input from users and understand how BC will be changing it. Michael
asked for a handful of questions that can be used to get feedback from
other users at FSL.

Action Items:
Francoise, with Chuck's help, to put few questions together and send it
to Michael

Francoise to inquire from sv-bc on the current thinking regarding this
item


- Should there be a feedback from the Post-Observed Region to the Active
Region?

Michael wanted to understand what this means. Francoise described it as
PLI does not have callbacks in Post-Observed Region which means that
feedback loop can not be created by the language. User can place an
indirect callback into the region to create 0 delay put value. This is
stated in section 4.4.3.6 of the merged LRM. Michael asked about what
else can be activated through this feedback loop other than assertions
and follow up actions. Chuck mentioned that there is blur between what
is part of the design and what is not when it comes to interaction in
that region. Michael asked if it is possible for action from this region
to force design reevaluation before testbench see the change. Francoise
used an example of PLI evaluating verilog function. Discussion on how to
use this in the post region to evaluate but not propagate to design.
Francoise suggested finding out from users.

Action Items:
Francoise to ask Stu from user prospective

Michael to ask inside FSL about need/use



Motion to adjourn. Francoise/Jim. 
Next meeting will be on 05/23/07. 
Meeting ended at 12:58 PM.



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.