RE: [sv-bc] Checkers & Formal

Hi, Brad -

I had not included Dimitry, Ed, Harry or John on the previous posting 
because I thought I was not supposed to do so without 
group-permission of the SV-BC or SV-EC. Hope this is okay. Obviously 
this is not the official position of the SV-BC or SV-EC, yet.

Proposed Agenda -
Dimitry to go over his slides - allow BC & EC to ask questions, 
including questions of the form, "why do it this way?" or "why not do 
it this other way?"
Have AC members present the SVDB Mantis items that could directly 
impact Procedural coding and instantiation. Discuss reasons versus 
alternatives. Discuss scheduling issues related to the proposals. 
Discuss proposed new keywords (some mentioned include, "next" - would 
break every FSM design I have ever coded, "free" and "checker" seem 
like pretty common RTL or verification identifiers).
Mantis items to include (not necessarily complete list): 1900, 1549, 
1681, 1648, 1728, 1682, 2088, 2089

The proposals may be fine as written, but there have been serious 
issues raised in both the SV-BC and the SV-EC regarding these 
proposals and how they impact the sections that we have been 
addressing in these groups. We want to make sure that we have 
agreement on important proposals to help build consensus when it is 
time to ballot this revision of the 1800 Standard. If the issues are 
not addressed ASAP, we run the danger of being required to address 
NO-votes on the standard itself when balloted.

Regards - Cliff

At 12:05 PM 3/4/2008, Brad Pierce wrote:
>Cliff,
>
>What would the specific agenda of such a joint meeting be?
>
>That is, what are we going to decide?
>
>-- Brad
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>Clifford E. Cummings
>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:49 AM
>To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
>Subject: [sv-bc] Checkers & Formal
>
>Thanks, Steven for distributing the slides.
>
>The slides help but I think what we really need is to have a joint
>meeting between the BC & EC and at least the following individuals from
>the AC: Dimitry, Ed Cerny and Harry Foster. There are times when I
>cannot tell if the slide is promoting a feature or discouraging a
>feature.
>
>I would like Dimitry to make the presentation (we don't need Webex or
>anything, we can all follow the slides) and I would like to have two
>very trusted Formal guys in Ed and Harry to help address questions.
>If Dimitry says something is "needed" I want to question Ed and Harry to
>ask what the alternatives could be. I have a great deal of trust and
>respect for the opinions of Ed and Harry, gained over many years of
>interaction with them both.
>
>Does this makes sense? Could we make this happen?
>
>Otherwise, I would be inclined to vote the whole mess out and take it up
>again in the next rev of 1800, along with some of the messes that I was
>proposing.
>
>Regards - Cliff
>
>At 10:16 AM 3/4/2008, Steven Sharp wrote:
> >I am attaching the PowerPoint presentation on checkers that Dmitry
>sent.
> >
> >Steven Sharp
> >sharp@cadence.com
>--
>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.

----------------------------------------------------
Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training


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