[sv-cc] SV-CC meeting minutes - Aug-3-2011

Attendees:
Jim V. (Cadence)
Francoise M. (Cadence)
Bassam T. (Synopsys)
George S. (Mentor)
Arturo S. (Synopsys)
Arnob S. (Mentor)
Amit K. (Cadence)
Chuck B. (Cadence)
Vitaly Y. (Cadence)
Ghassan K. (Synopsys)

Ghassan reviewed patent information at:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt

Approval of Agenda
Chuck/George - Accepted

Review minutes from last meeting, July 20th, 2011

http://www.eda.org/twiki/bin/view.cgi/P1800/SVCCMeetingMinutes110720

Jim/Chuck - Accepted

Liaisons
No Update

Consent Agenda
None

Expedited Agenda

- Item 3022 (continue debate, George to update on macro issue)
George sent an update to the action item on windows macros.
Discussion on what should be included from/to. Suggestion to make comment on symbol without application, the order needs to be reversed between import/export in mantis.
Suggestion to replace win32 with _MSC_VER.
Action Item: George to update the written proposal.
Action Item: George to try getting the source code and compiling it on windows

- Item 3295 (update on response to SV-AC)
No status update.
Action Item: Follow up with Charles on the response to SV-AC

New Business

- Item 3087 (discuss updated proposal 1.0.1 and Annex H)
Since Vitaly was not on the call at this time, discussion started on issues found by Arnob

Arnob: All new type of enumeration, arrays not same as DPI-C, want to understand motivation behind that and contrast that with users' pain to understand
Arnob & Arturo: DPI-OO would not be compatible with current DPI-C standard

Arnob has made comments on the proposal document itself. Consensus is to upload it with a different name for the committee to share

Discussion on pragma & comments as continuation from reflector discussion by Brad Pierce and Dave Rich. Argument is for richer syntax that will not require the user to re-type the classes.

Vitaly joined 40 minutes into the call

Vitaly: Response to the pragma issue is that SV language does not provide for all different options
Arnob: However, use of pragma can cause compatibility issues between different vendors

Discussion on how much to expose or make it transparent between proposed interface to C++ and third layer language on top of C++ (Arturo, Vitaly, Jim)

Forcing tools to parse C++ should not be part of standard (Arnob)

At 1:05 PM, consensus is to continue discussion on the reflector including new comments to be uploaded by Arnob

Adjourn
Chuck/Jim - Accepted
Meeting ended at 1:08 PM

Next meeting is on August 17, 2011

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