[sv-bc] RE: SystemVerilog UVM WG request list

Hi Shalom,
I just added 4300 to the target list for 201x

Francoise
        '

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:56 AM
To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] RE: SystemVerilog UVM WG request list

I made a quick check of the Mantis issues referred to in the UVM list. Only 3 are in the list we already made (i.e., Target Version = 201x).

And of course, many don't refer to existing Mantis issues.

Some of the issues that were mentioned on BC and EC reflectors (or internally within Intel) are not yet in Mantis either.

Regards,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
> Maidment, Matthew R
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 02:17
> To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] FW: SystemVerilog UVM WG request list
> 
> SV-BC & SV-EC.
> 
> The UVM WG pulled together a detailed list of SV features desired.  
> I'm sending to the reflector.  Please review.
> Will work to incorporate that into our overall feedback to the 1800WG.
> 
> Matt
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alsop, Thomas R
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:21 PM
> >To: Maidment, Matthew R
> >Subject: SystemVerilog UVM WG request list
> >
> >Matt,
> >
> >We spent over an hour discussing this SV request list in today's UVM WG.
> >Attached is a rev1 list of items we want considered by the sv-bc and 
> >sv- ec groups.  We didn't get a chance to discuss all the items as we 
> >ran out of time but we went through and prioritized, justified the 
> >items, and categorized them by impact to the UVM BCL development 
> >effort.  I am going to solicit further feedback on our reflector so 
> >there will be some minor revisions.
> >
> >-Tom
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
> >Maidment, Matthew R
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:29 PM
> >To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
> >Subject: [sv-bc] Agenda: SV-BC/SV-EC 1800 Scoping Meeting Feb 25 
> >9-11am PST
> >
> >SV-BC/SV-EC 1800 Scoping Meeting
> >Date: Feb 25, 2015
> >Time: 09:00am-11:00am PST
> >Join online: https://meet.intel.com/matthew.r.maidment/6F695NSL
> >Join by Phone:
> >US: +1(916)356-2663
> >UK: +44 179340 2663
> >Choose bridge 5.
> >Conference ID: 702617185
> >
> >*       Roll Call (5 min)
> >
> >                2015
> >Rep     Company Feb 18  Feb 25
> >Matt Maidment   Intel   X
> >Brad Pierce     Synopsys        X
> >Ray Ryan        Mentor  X
> >Jonathan Bromley        Verilab X
> >Daniel Schostak ARM     X
> >Mark Hartoog    Synopsys        X
> >Neil Korpusik   Oracle  X
> >Arturo Salz     Synopsys        X
> >Shalom Bresticker       Intel   X
> >Dave Rich       Mentor  X
> >Francoise Martinolle    Cadence X
> >Stu Sutherland  SutherlandHDL   X
> >Sachin  Mentor  X
> >
> >*       Review Previous Meeting Notes (5 min)
> >      http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/11692.html
> >      http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/hm/8568.html
> >
> >*       Patent Policy Reminder (5 min)
> >      http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
> >
> >*       Mantis Review (60 min)
> >      Review items marked for P1800-201X
> >      http://tinyurl.com/q9jz7u9
> >      for trends and try to summarize type and scope of interest.
> >
> >*       Continue capturing overall group summary (45 min)
> >
> >      From Feb 18 meeting:
> >*       Consensus is to include for errata and clarification.  This could
> >include minor enhancements for resolution.  Consensus from vendors 
> >and users.
> >*       If there are major enhancements they should be done with
> >sufficient contributors.  Asking for many enhancements to be 
> >implemented by limited number of committee members will not succeed.
> >*       Would like to see global resolution of priority.  During 2012
> >effort, BC and EC members were pulled into AC/DC work.  Would like to 
> >ensure that AC/DC or any other major initiative is properly scoped.
> >Should consider impact of 1801, 1802, AC, AMS/DC, 1735 and others.
> >*       Difficult to make recommendations without timeframe.  Timeframe
> >would influence scope.  BC/EC should suggest timeframe and factor 
> >this into their proposal (short vs medium vs long)  From Karen:  "I 
> >suggest making an estimate of what it will take to do the work your 
> >team feels is necessary."
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> >MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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




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