[sv-ec] Minutes from 2 February 2004 Meeting


Subject: [sv-ec] Minutes from 2 February 2004 Meeting
From: David W. Smith (dwsmith@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 07:48:49 PST


Greetings,
The minutes for yesterday's meeting have been posted to the web site and are attached.

Regards
David

SV-EC Meeting Minutes
2 February 2004 9:00 am. Wednesday

(rrrrrrrrrrxrxrxrrrrr)
Voting Members (3/4 or > 75%)
(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Arturo Salz (Synopsys)
(-aaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaa-a) Brad Pierce (Synopsys)
(aaaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaa-a) Dave Rich (Synopsys)
(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) David Smith (Synopsys)
(-aaa-aaa-a-aap-p-aa-) Dennis Brophy (ModelTech)
(aaaaapaaaaaa-aaaaa-a) Jay Lawrence (Cadence)
(aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Michael Burns (Motorola)
(-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Mehdi Mohtashemi (Synopsys)
(aa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Neil Korpusik (Sun)
(--aaaaaaaaaaaaa--aaa) Ray Ryan (ModelTech)
 ||||||||||||||||||||_ 2 February
 |||||||||||||||||||__ 21 January
 ||||||||||||||||||___ 5 January
 |||||||||||||||||____ 15 December
 ||||||||||||||||_____ 8 December
 |||||||||||||||______ 1 December
 ||||||||||||||_______ 24 November
 |||||||||||||________ 17 November
 ||||||||||||_________ 11 November
 |||||||||||__________ 3 November
 ||||||||||___________ 27 October
 |||||||||____________ 20 October
 ||||||||_____________ 13 October
 |||||||______________ 29 September
 ||||||_______________ 15 September
 |||||________________ 2 September
 ||||_________________ 18 Aug
 |||__________________ 4 Aug
 ||___________________ 21 July
 |____________________ 7 July
 
Non-Voting Members (attendance based)
(------a-------------) Chris Spear (Synopsys)
(--aaaa-aaa---a-aaa--) Cliff Cummings (IEEE 1364)
(-------------s-s----) Doug Warmke (ModelTech)
(-----s--------------) Francoise Martinolle (Cadence)
(--a-aaa-a-----------) Jeff Freedman (ModelTech)
(-----------a--------) Peter Flake
(---------------a----) Ron Goodstein (First Shot Logic Simulation and Design)
(---a-----------aa--a) Stefen Boyd (IEEE 1364)
(-a---a----------aa--) Stu Sutherland (IEEE 1364)

Guests (non-voting)
(--a-a-a----------a--) Don Mills (LCDM Engineering)
(-----a--------------) James Young (HP)
(-a------------------) Kevin Cameron (National)

r => Regular meeting
x => Extra meeting (Presence counts for attendance, absence does not)

a => Attended
p => Attended by proxy
s => Attended as proxy
- => Missed

Action Items:
    [identified with AI (#) in this text, # refers to AI number]
    Added this week (please see the site for existing action items):

    AI-55 (Neil): Review cross references for accuracy
    AI-56 (Brad): Review cross references for accuracy
    AI-57 (Ray/Brad): Deal with randomize statement BNF

Minutes 2/2/04 taken by Mehdi Mohtashemi

1. Review of the meeting minutes
    http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC-Minutes-2004-January-21.txt

    Motion: Accept Minutes of 21 January
    Moved: Neil
    Second: Arturo
    Abstain: Brad (not read)
    Opposed: None
    Passed

2. Review of open Action Items
    All closed

3. Review of Inter-committee dependencies
    All closed

4. Review Errata list
    David: New items, 5 LRM erratas thad did not go throug the committee,
        need to make sure they are ok. From Vassilios email, erratta being
        editorial, no need to go through committee process. They are all open,
        purely editorial nature. The others are change of content and need
        more discussion before they get into the LRM. The chairs would make
        that decision. Any thing that does not get into the LRM will be in
        errata.

    Proposals:
    LRM-191:
        Neil will review in Draft 4
    LRM-192
        Brad will review in Draft 4
    LRM-193
        Change to remove process from static.

        Michael: We should include class members in the paragraph.
        David: In 5.5, Dave suggested to remove in the process in that
            paragraph.
        Michael: Is this in new draft LRM?
        Neil: Down at the bottom.
        David: If you download draft4.
        Michael: Do we mention it here that member function and tasks are
            automatic functions or tasks.
        David: First question is: applies to member functions and tasks.
            The second question is do we need to clarify for automatic.
        Michael: Maybe we can say in (automatic )
        Jay: Are tasks and functions automatic by default?
        David: Yes it is, even if it is, there is another section detailing
            the default behaviour.
        Michael: With always initial, do you mean names?
        Jay: You can creat automatic variables there now.
        David: Any scope is automatic by some mechanism. Scope is local to the
            block, any block. Instead of having to enumerate all, is there a
            generic term.
        Dave: Functions/tasks are the only place where you can declare
            scope to be automtic.
        Brad: Modules and interfaces too.
        Dave: No, in modules have to be non-automatic.
        Jay: For always/initial blocks what is the use of it.
        Arturo: We can declare a module to have automatic life, with LRM
            correction on that. I think it was Dave who suggested that.
        Dave: What if we say, ...in a automatic block such as a tasks/functions.
        Michael: To enumerate all the automatic scopes here would not be
            necessary.
        Arturo: This is an informative section.
        David: 5.5 is not informative section.
            Data declared to be static in automatic block, such as a
            task/function, has scope of life-time staitic life-time in the
            scope of block.
        Jay: You are inventing a new term, automatic block.
        David: Ok how about:
            Data declared to be static in an automatic task, function, or block
            has a static lifetime and a scope local to the block.
        Motion: Accept change as modified above.
        Moved: Dave
        Second: Michael
        Abstain: None
        Opposed: None
        Passed

    LRM-195
        Arturo: The definition of semantics of pass by reference was removed
            somehow, it should not have been deleted.
        Neil: Is it undoing LRM-111?
        David: No, it is applying it correctly.

        Motion: Accept change
        Moved: Arturo
        Second: Neil
        Abstain: None
        Opposed: None
        Passed

    LRM_199

        Motion: Accept change in LRM-199
        Moved: Arturo
        Second: Mehdi
        Abstain: None
        Opposed: None
        Passed

    David: 3 issues come from the email reflector that we need to discuss.

    Unused production range_list_or_array in BNF (from Ray Ryan)
            Accepted without objection

    LRM syntax for calls to randomize
        David:
            There was a question from Ray, on randomize, two different places
            with two different rules.
         Arturo: I think there was some confusion for the use of "with",
             one in randomize and one on the array randomization.
         Ray: I was looking at 12.5.1, randomize is pre-defined method.
             Syntactically they do match up. In the way LRM is shown, it looks
             like a blocking assignment. Randomize returns a value 0/1. You
             cannot use if (randomize...), because we are making randomize
             a statement, why can we not make it a method call.
         Arturo: Yes, i guess we can do this. Brad do you have any comments.
         Brad: It should be an expression?
         Ray: In 8.2, there is the rule for method call. makes it easier,
             pulls the two with in there makes it clear. with {}, with (),
             class, and array.
         Brad: The first thing was to remove randomize from blocking
             assignemnt, three places. Should we change method call to say,
             any expression or class-variable identifier.
         Arturo: It should be any expression.
         Ray: That part is optional, looking at scope for randomize productions.
         David: Can I make a suggestion to take it off-line, discuss it on the
            reflector, propose a solution, and we can vote on it.
        
    Unpacked arrays fixed and dynamic
        David: The last one is the issue of packed-array form Johnattan.
            Do you still want to make the change that you proposed.
            Informative change in 4.1, deletion in 4.2, and some change in 4.6.
        Dave: Deletion in 4.2 is moved into 4.1, updated to deal with queues,
            and text being one-dimensional was not right.
        David: Jonattan's suggestion did nothing to change the intent?
        Dave: He was trying to find better wordings.
        Neil: Not that he disagreed with you,
        Dave: No, he did not make any other suggestions either.

        Motion: Accept change as documented in email
        Moved: Dave
        Second: Arturo
        Abstain: None
        Opposed: None
        Passed

5. LRM Review
    Summary and Assignments:
        Glossary
            Dave - in progress
        Verification of all cross references
            Sections 1-7: Ray - in progress
            Sections 8-14: Stu
            Sections 15-21: Neil - in Draft 4
            Sections 21-29: Brad - in Draft 4
        Check all changes for consistency and correctness
            Assertions - Michael - in progress
                Semantic simularities with Assertions being found.
            C API -
            Classes/Randomization - Mehdi - in progress
            Constraints - Arturo - in progress
            Types - Dave - in progress

6. Review 3.1a Extensions and discussion
    All closed

7. Meeting Logistics
    Next meeting scheduled for 18 February 2004 from 10:00am until 12:00pm

    Focus on editorial review and any open errata.

8. Next Meeting
   Monday February 18, 2004, 10:00am-12:00 pm PST
  
9. Meeting adjourned at: 11:45 am.




This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 08:00:20 PST